Talk:2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The long list of images of the destruction in Gaza

You may have noticed that there are over 5 consecutive pictures depicting the damage in Gaza, all having the same caption: "Destruction in Gaza after Israeli strikes". Not only these pictures take a lot of space, but also they give a feel as though the damage Israel has taken is incomparable to the damage Gaza has taken, which is biased. I suggest that some of the pictures depicting the "Destruction in Gaza after Israeli strikes" will be compressed into one large image depicting all the images together as one. This will help keeping the article slightly more neutral. -Eyal3400

I agree that the number of images in this article is biased. Right now there are twelve photos of destruction in Gaza and two of destruction in Israel, plus one picture of Israeli children running for cover in Kiryat Malachi. I think that, in order to be unbiased, there should be an equal number of images depicting destruction on both sides. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article was swung to the Israel side yesterday and now it looks like it's swung to the Gaza side in terms of images. Is it really that hard to keep them even? Silverseren^C 04:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is still an imbalance in regards to the pictures. Now there are four photos of destruction in Gaza and one of destruction in Israel. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how the pictures are in any way biased. Most of the casualties and destruction occurred in Gaza. This article should reflect that. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Images should be relevant to the article and provide information on the section they are located in, not try to elicit emotional response.--Mor2 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It is true that there were more casualties in Gaza, but the IDF targeted military sites while Hamas targeted Israeli civilians. This is a controversial subject, and images are often used to try to sway peoples' opinions. In order to be unbiased, the article should have an equal number of photos of destruction on each side of the conflict. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes section

While most of paragraphs in this sections discuss specific actions like the 'Israeli missile attacks against two media centers' the 'Dalu family case', Palestinian use of civilian areas to conduct its operations, use of human shields and Palestinian indiscriminate attacks and targeting of civilians population.

Those two statements:

• British MP Gerald Kaufman criticized the Israeli offensive, as well as the broader context of the hostilities — Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza — as war crimes.[337] In an emergency meeting of the Arab League, Foreign Ministers of member-states also accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• Turkey and Iran refused to accept Israel's allegation that it was acting in self-defense, and held it as solely responsible for the escalation in the hostilities. Both accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes. Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel a terrorist state and condemned its "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians. Iran highlighted the need to arm Palestinians so they could defend themselves.[339]

Seems like a copy paste from the 'Reactions' sections. It should be clarified what are the alleged war crimes here and everything unrelated to the scope of this section should be removed. --Mor2 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though trimming of the Reactions section statements might be more in order, if they're addressing war crimes when we have a separate section for that. Or at least find a different quote to use as a Reaction. Silverseren^C 21:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that not everyone agree with this, so i have trimmed the obvious unrelated parts and added clarify request to the allegations. If specific allegations of war crimes can't be found, it should be removed from the war crimes section.--Mor2 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

IDF media campaign

In the 'IDF media campaign' section, the first two paragraphs deal with the campaign. However the:

• Third paragraph:

The UNRWA criticized as false an IDF video pertaining to Operation Cast Lead which suggested Hamas was launching rockets at Israel from UN schools in the Gaza Strip. It stressed the neutrality of its facilities in the war.[368]

It is about an event from 2008 Gaza war and has nothing todo with topic. ( Also on an unrelated note, the only thing I found in the source titled "UN agency rips IDF for video alleging militants use its Gaza schools to launch rockets" is that UNRWA concerned that the footage "wrongly suggested the agency’s complicity in “terrorist activities” targeting Israel." i.e. it doesn't 'rip' or make any comment on the militants action, other than saying that they are not complicit. So in either case what said in paragraph is uncensored or heavily paraphrased to reflect a certain POV)

• Forth paragraph:

Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah has accused the IDF of producing and spreading through social media "a fake hospital sign that purports to show that Hamas leaders hide under hospitals and stockpile weapons there." Recalling Israel's attacks on hospitals during Operation Cast Lead, Abunimah wrote that the sign "appears intended to justify in advance the bombing of Gaza hospitals and health facilities".[369]

I believe its called illustration, probably used as part of an article to inform about tactics previously used by Hamas, not creating "fake hospital signs". As for the second part, can someone tell me what is Wikipedia policy on Abunimah opinion?

• Also here is a link with some info on Hamas campaign/media [1] I found while googling this. --Mor2 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the material you deleted. You said: "heavily rephrased version of what is stated in the source, from unrealted event form 2008". This is false. It is exactly the same as was stated in the article. More, the event is relevant, as per the IDF twitter. Do not delete sourced content before discussing, please. Unflavoured (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The source state:

(UNRWA) issued a statement Tuesday expressing its “concern” for the use of footage which wrongly suggested the agency’s complicity in “terrorist activities” targeting Israel. The agency also took issue with "the unauthorised use of its logo in computer-generated material.

while in the article it says:

The UNRWA criticized as false an IDF video pertaining to Operation Cast Lead which suggested Hamas was launching rockets at Israel from UN schools in the Gaza Strip

i.e. they say that they are not complicit in those actions, not that the Hamas didn't do them, as text in the article suggest, so it is a violation of WP:SYN. Furthermore both statements in text relate to 2008 events and has nothing todo with current campaign. That is unless you are brewing more WP:SYN with the next section. Please self revert. --Mor2 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What does this say: "Exposed: UN agency rips IDF for video" ?! How about this statement: "A UN relief agency has shot down allegations" !? Do not half-read. The summary is correct, and there is no synthesis. Unflavoured (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Event if you ignore their actual statement and use the paraphrased version of it. It comes down to "UNRWA criticized..." video from 2008 gaza war, stating its their facilities in that war were neutral. So how is this related to the current camping? please self revert. --Mor2 (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When the IDF made a statement about the video in question, specifying that it was about Hamas' tactics in the Gaza strip, that made it related. When rt wrote an article with a response, that made it source-able. The tweet was made by the IDF on 17 November, 2012, smack in the middle of the operation. The article on rt is from November 20, 2012. Let us not try to push a certain POV by censoring clearly relevant and related sourced material. Unflavoured (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets not confuse what you want it to say, what the source says and what it actually said in the article. atm you have an unrelated statement by UNRWA from 2008, which should be removed. If you want to improve it please clarify in relation to this conflict, who accuse who and in what. --Mor2 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article seems to be quite clear to me. What is confusing you !? Unflavoured (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Who criticize the current IDF campaign and what is the criticism.--Mor2 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

UNRWA criticized the current IDF campaign's twitter, which had a video link about Hamas' tactics in Gaza. The criticism is that the video is false. Unflavoured (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see it is not leading anywhere, so let me suggest that we simple use a primary source [2] which states that

UNRWA denies allegations made online by the IDF Spokesperson that Palestinian. Featuring an animated film that depicts militants firing rockets from a school clearly marked with the UNRWA insignia. Shwoing concerned about the creation and use of footage that wrongly suggests that UNRWA is allowing its premises to be used for terrorist activities in the current conflict and the unauthorised use of its logo

because everything else in the current text is according to RT, who is making the unspecified accusations about the camping as whole, not UNRWA).--Mor2 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use secondary sources. Also, that sentence is absolutely horrible English. The current one is much, much better. Unflavoured (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then add a nice according to RT. Because the official statement made by UNRWA doesn't have the words Hamas, tactics, or discuss anything beyond the content of that specific video and how it portray them, all of that is made by RT.--Mor2 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic: I just spent several minutes goggling this, so I can see what all the fuse is about. I couldn't find the official video, but I believe this is it at liveleak, its all about the the several seconds section after 1:40, where you can see a computer generated model accompanying an actual video of rockets, the problem is that the model have UNRWA logo, while the real one has something else (which explains UNRWA part of the statement complaining about the unauthorized use of its logo in computer-generated graphic) --Mor2 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't find the video because, following UNRWA's complaint, the IDF deleted it. The UNRWA pointed out before the conflict broke out that allegations about use of its schools as military platforms by Hamas are false and this has been admitted also by Israeli news sources. [3] The link that you yourself provided is clear as to that point:

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) denies allegations made online by the IDF Spokesperson that Palestinian militants are using UNRWA schools or facilities in Gaza to fire rockets into Israel.

Guinsberg (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What is PIJ?

The article makes a couple references to "PIJ" without explaining what "PIJ" is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks direct the reader to Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine which could be enough. Otherwise we could use the full name for its first appearance. Ryan Vesey 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Acronym should be spelled out on first use. I had the same issues with 'Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades' after someone decided to replace most references of Hamas with it. To me it made the article harder to follow(and probably to anyone else who is not from Israel, its immediate vicinity or expert on the various groups in gaza).--Mor2 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Can we consider commenting out the references in the lead that are supported in-text? We currently have one sentence with 11 citations and others that also have too many. It is generally not necessary to use a citation in the lead if it is later supported in-text. I support commenting out the citations, because it is easier to ensure that editors are not introducing false information into the lead. In addition, the facts that are supported in the lead but not in text should be moved into the text. Ryan Vesey 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Spillover

The 'Spillover' section deals mostly with various protests in the West bank, which are not directly related to the operation in Gaza. The rest of the protest are dealt in the 'protests' section, is the weight and level of detail given to these protest is due compared to the rest? --Mor2 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dalu family revisited

We now have two parts of the article dealing with the Dalu family. In Palestinian casualties and in Alleged war crimes. Where should that information be? Do we want it in both sections? In addition, it says that no justification has been given. Above on this page, I pointed out that there was a justification in that the IDF was targeting someone responsible for launching rockets into Israel and that the strike on the Dalu family was an accident. Ryan Vesey 15:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The source [4] doesn't say no justification was given. It says the reason was unclear because conflicting reasons had been offered: that "the IDF had targeted the wrong house" and that "it was targeted in the belief that a Hamas militant was inside". Ryan Vesey 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's some Wikipedia dictate determining that a given subject not be mentioned on different parts of an entry, I don't see the problem in retaining the mentions to the Dalu family in both of them. The Dalu family massacre is relevant to both the subject of total Palestinian casualties (and the circumstances surrounding them) as well allegations of war crimes. In my view, it should, therefore, be mentioned on both parts of the entry.

And the source does say that no explanation was given for the attack:

The reason for the targeting of the Dalou family home remained unclear. Two Israeli papers reported that the IDF had targeted the wrong house, while a third said it was targeted in the belief that a Hamas militant was inside.

Saying that it was an accident, doesn't even begin to explain the "mistake". And, considering that, according to the excerpt, Israelis themselves are divided as to why the house became a target, I doubt there even is an explanation.

And by the way, I think the section about Palestinian casualties caused by Israelis should be much larger. It's about half the size of the combined sections on Palestinian casualties that resulted from friendly fire and from Hamas's purge on alleged infiltrators. Many more Palestinians died by Israeli actions than by those of fellow Palestinians. Is there a reason for the entry's content to not reflect that? I doubt it would be editors would tolerate it if someone made a much larger section on Israeli casualties caused by friendly fire than by Hamas, if it was the case that Israelis died more at the hands of the latter than of the former. Guinsberg (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We can say the attack was a mistake and that innocent civilians were killed, but we cannot say there was no reason given. The wording of the sentence implies that Israel intentionally bombed the house knowing there were only innocents inside. That is false. We have a statement from Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, an IDF spokesperson [5] stating that there was an intended target. Ryan Vesey 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't know whether it is true that Israel bombed the home by mistake either. Keep your assumptions to yourself. What we know is that Israel bombed the Dalu home, that no one living in it presented a threat to Israel, and that, according to the Israelis, the attack was a mistake. And that's it. But, "mistake" isn't an explanation or a reason — that's why The Guardian said no reason had been offered as to the shelling. The reason, I think, not even Israelis themselves know, as some will say the "surgical" strike was made by mistake, and others that some truly believed there were militants in it. Guinsberg (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep your assumptions to yourself about the lack of justification. What we do know is that a spokesperson for the IDF said the target was someone responsible for launching rockets into Israel and the bombing of the Dalu home was an accident. That's what we should report. Ryan Vesey 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have the link where that is really said, then post it on the article — I have no objection to it. I kept adding that part, not because I was trying to remove IDF apologies, but because someone was insisting on removing any references to the Dalu family on that section. Worth repeating: the section on Israeli-caused casualties is way too small, nad the fact that it is far out-sized by friendly-fire and anti-"collaborator" acts is damning evidence of bias. Guinsberg (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I introduced a neutrally worded version. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That was a good summary. Guinsberg (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties (everything about casualties goes here)

I cannot verify the casualty claims via the references

A key bit of information is how many of the casualties were militants, versus civilians. There are claims made about this on the sidebar of the article, with footnotes citing sources from the references. The claim is this information comes from Gaza health. However, I find nothing to validate these numbers when I click on any of there references given.

Can we try and get some sort of authoritative and properly cited reference to the number of casualties who were militants, versus civilians? I note below the discussion on naming them all and presumably classifying them as militant or civilian. That would be one way to do it, but I think what most readers want--side from the notables--is the headline figure, and where it's disputed (surely it is), what each side claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.15 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Civilian Losses/Objectivity Issues

Why are all Palestinian civilian losses denoted as being 'claims' (and rightly so) by each belligerent, but the Israeli civilian losses are not treated the same way? If objectivity is to be maintained, one must assume that anyone can alter their figures, even close allies of the United States. Not to mention, that count came from the defense force. Please keep the parenthetical denotations even across the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Event Nexus (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because the Palestinians have been caught lying about casualties many many many times before(Always inflating the toll, faking deaths or whatever else they could do to make themselves look weaker so everyone will pity them, which btw works very well as media enjoys feasting on their lies regardless of how many times they have been proved lying before), yet Israel has never lied about such thing, it's the difference between a culture who loves and encourages death (Palestinians) and one that loves and encourages life.

Being objective has nothing to do with this facts, information from Israel is very reliable when it comes to casualties and that's all there is to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.201 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

73 year old casualty

A 73 year old man died on his way to a bomb shelter. http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/amud-anan/Article-2a4cf3a2e301b31006.htm&Partner=rss Google chrome can translate the article. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason this hasn't been added to the page yet? 212.29.253.97 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't die from a rocket - he died of a heart attack caused by a rocket. (a small difference.) Inkbug (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is just stupid. Nobody has died from a rocket. People have only died from shrapenel or the expansion of air, caused by a rocket. This man died because a rocket was fired into his vicinity.

Casualties and losses-Children?

I haven't dealt with a similar article, is it common to put a parenthetical note for how many children died on a side? I'm looking at some things where I know children died like the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and there's nothing in the infobox listed. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not common. It is a subjective ploy.

A child could be a militant. If, for example, a 12-year-old child was given a weapon and a uniform and asked to attack enemy soldiers that child would be a legitimate military target, and it would make no sense to refer to that casualty as a "child" since that would be demagoguery.

When talking about civilians and militants it makes no sense to discriminate their age or gender.

A child is either a civilian or a militant in this context. The use of children in militias or armies is not unheard of, and any person with a weapon is dangerous.

Bennyman (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently the dead children have been an 11-month old boy, 8-month old girl and 7-year old girl. Militants indeed.VR _talk 05:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Vice Regent

It does not matter. All people are civilians unless armed or stated otherwise. Wikipedia does not discriminate based on age or gender.

When you start to talk about "women and children" dying you are using pathos which is an appeal to people's emotions which is subjective, and not objective. You are also justifying the murder of men as more fair and men as lesser beings than women and children.

Bennyman (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RS report the number of children killed as relevant therefore it is relevant to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualty names

Casualties are often named if their names are available. For example, see this article. I'm ensuring that the names of casualties, both Israeli and Palestinian, are included and sourced.VR _talk 05:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that article can serve a guide. The Kandahar massacre was a singular event created by a single soldier. Is there a precedent for including the names of the deceased in a broader military operation? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the two articles as very similar. I think the differences you mention are rather minor. If we are talking about a "broader military operation", we have this article, where German casualties in Afghanistan war are named.

The names I added are clearly mentioned in reliable sources.

You cited Wikipedia:Notability. That guideline is about whether people can have their own articles, not whether they can be mentioned in an article whose notability is proven without doubt. In fact there's a section that says just that.VR _talk 05:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to name the casualties, except for propoganda. Reading through the talk section, it seems there was a user who complained this article was pro-Isreal, when in actuality, it was a fairly balanced article. Today, that has changed and there has been a shift towards the Palastinian POV. Listing all the casualties with names and ages, is propoganda for the Palastinians and has no place in this article. I request that it be removed. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Israeli and Palestinian casualties have been listed.VR _talk 14:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The names of casualties are not listed in any other military conflict article in Wikipedia, and for good reason. Please remove that section.

It looks like you have already expressed your opinion on this in the already open discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud#Casualty_names) on this issue. Opening another thread to repeat your opinion is disruptive, and it is not going to increase the likelihood of your position being accepted. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEMORIAL, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY I have removed the names added in the section and left the total number killed references in place. Yes I see it fine to add info on the notable people and how they died but as an encyclopedia we cant mention every single person killed by name if they are not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's completely undue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I see the consensus is against me, so I'll accept that result.VR _talk 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties, casualties, casualties

The article currently lists the number of casualties in three different places and none of the numbers match. For as long as these numbers are subject to constant change, I think the article would be better maintained if the numbers only had to be updated in two places. I think the only uncontroversial option is to remove it form the infobox while leaving the number in the lead and in the casualties section. Capscap (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? There is a "current" tag on the article:

It's fine for the numbers not to match, since the numbers are uncertain. Shall we put the words "at least" in fron to f each of the numbers? (since the numbers will go up with time; not down). Mr G (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I get that it's current and the information may rapidly change, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be internally consistent. If editors are going to not notice or forget to change the casualty numbers in multiple places, I think it would be better with only mismatch rather than two. Capscap (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Mirah Scharf

Mirah Scharf, the Israeli woman who was killed in the apartment bombing, was pregnant. I believe that should be mentioned in the casualties section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur...if we are mentioning the pregnant Palestinian woman, then the Israeli pregnant woman should be mentioned as well. Please fix this. --98.199.150.149 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I want to fix it, but right now it seems only editors with accounts are allowed to edit the page. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

None are mentioned now. Inkbug (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Hamas militants killed

I have placed tags on this as I feel it goes against consensus reached above, I do not see why we need to include names of those who are not notable. See also: WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that civilians should not be named, but known militants that are killed seems a valid and useful information section, considering the stated objective of the military operation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think there should not be a list of every militant killed. Not all of them are notable. For the ones that are, I think it'd be better to work them into the text if possible. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Knowledgekid87 mentioned his objection to the section on my talk page. Naturally I agree with BritishWatcher that it's important to have this information, and I stated my reasons there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be one of those hide/show boxes ? so that those who wish to see the list can simply click show, and avoids the article getting too long as the list is added to? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevant section is WP:NLIST. The names of each and every militant listed needs to be of sufficient importance to be worth including within the text of the article to be considered sufficiently notable for a list. Especially since this is an ongoing operation and there is bound to be a sizable number of deceased militants by the end of it, I do not see how each and every militant would merit being written into the text. I suppose we could do one of the hat things when the event gets to the stage where there's a "casualties" section. Jonathanfu (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally WP:Undue unless they are well known or major operatives, and then still is just a paragraph in casualties. CarolMooreDC 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to remove all the casualty names! I see this is completely wrong, given that all the casualty names of the civilians were removed. This needs to be removed ASAP per consensus.

Mentioning only the militants, while removing all mention of the civilian casualty names is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. It essentially ignores the Palestinian POV that many of their civilians have died in the conflict. Either we mention both, or neither. Names of notable militant casualties, like the Hamas commander should of course be mentioned in the text of the operation.VR _talk 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not a violation of NPOV, no civilians on either side should be named, armed militants that have been targeted and killed as part of the operation is very different and notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with only including the names of notable militants and what Jonathanfu said. The notable ones should be worthy of being worked into the text to qualify for a list. Capscap (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The names of the militants are notable, relevant, and do not take up an undue amount of space in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument that some of the militants that have been killed are notable, but not all of them are, and thus are not suitable for inclusion. Given that there is no news coverage besides the articles that tell of their killing, most of the deceased militants are likely footsoldiers, and not particularly notable themselves. Providing a list of IDF soldiers killed in the conflict would be equally unsuitable. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

11-month child killed

BBC story

I was trying to find out more about this, but information is scarce. I don't understand from the pictures what kind of "round" would cause this kind of damage - clearly not HE, so it's unlikely to be an Israeli missile or tank round - perhaps an illumination artillery round, but I don't see why anybody would use one. The most likely explanation might be a part of the engine from a disintegrating Qassam.

According to sources today (18 Nov) there were no shells being used until now. I've not seen any reports mentioning smoke or illum either. Quassams have a solid block of propellant from sugar and potassium nitrate - could it fall out if the welding was subpar? Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide an official source for that? --Mor2 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quassam details are from WP, it seems the nozzle is welded to the fuel compartment. I think the bit about only air raids until the 18th was CNN or BBC, but I don't have the link. This link claims tank fire on the 17th, though. It seems clear that artillery is now being used, but I don't think we can entirely rule out earlier use, even if it seems unlikely. Ketil (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Searching for this is hopeless, journalists are incredibly sloppy and seem to call anything "shelling" and "artillery". Sigh. Ketil (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps casualties should not be listed at all until they are confirmed by a third party? 80.179.9.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was a casualty, I'm mostly curious what would have caused it. Ketil (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

His father held him in his arms and described how he was killed, you should watch it. --Moemin05 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very emotional. Although the father's statement is important as such, he was apparently not present, and the evidence looks nothing like any "airstrike" - compare with the pictures of bombed Hamas offices. Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's role to accuse a child's father, local health officials and unaligned humanitariam organisations of lying, there is no reason to doubt this. It was reported by reputable news agencies --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Except for evidence, and truth, yeah no reason... this is wikipedia, where Hamas lies rereported are more important that facts infront of your face. 80.179.9.7 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are very good reasons to doubt this, the photographic evidence is clearly not from an "airstrike", no matter what the victims claim. I think in any case reports from the victims, no matter how professionally presented, must be considered a POV source. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, and of course this won't go on an official WP page without credible sources - but I really would like to know the truth, if possible. Ketil (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing violates this encyclopedia's rules on original research. It is not for you to 'check evidence' if reliable sources report something. If it were our role I would start a counterargument (air strikes can kill without hitting directly) but you removed content based on your own opinion and some rudimentary original research --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What exactly are you referring to? What have I done which has violated OR rules, and what did you think I 'removed based on my opinion? Ketil (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

israel- none Casualties ???

3 killed in the israeli side, it's a fact ,what does it mean "According to Israel"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.248.104 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The "none" refers to military casualties. Israeli civilian casualties are below it. Not sure what the "accordng to israeli" is for though, sems pointless to me too. (talk)

Not true. There are 1 dead and 2 wounded zionist sailors, after palestinians managed to hit a zionist gunboat with a "Kornet" anti-tank missile (russian make or its iranian copycat) on Friday. The gunboat was shelling Gaza from the very close distance of only 400 meters from the shore.

The above information is much supressed, because the vessel did not sink and returned to home port on the long way, so its damaged side was always pointing towards the open sea, unseen. (The same cover-up tactic was used when a zionist naval corvette got hit by an iranian made anti-shipping missile in 2006, killing several sailors.)

Iranian media also reports the palestinians downed a zionist F-16 two-seater jetfighter on Saturday and captured at least one of its crew. Palestinians now have powerful anti-rank and anti-air lightweight missiles, because supplies meant for the libyan and syrian "rebel" trojans were re-routed to them, via to pan-arabian sympathy. The same story western stupidity as it happened with Stinger via CIA -> anti-soviet mujahideen -> radical taliban / Al-Kaida. 87.97.97.219 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Since When is "Zionist" an acceptable term for "Israeli"? Israel is a country. Zionism is a form of nationalism - love of a land. It has no body, no ships, no anything. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

13 year old

There is a bit of confusion about this, witnesses disagree on whether it was fire from a vehicle or a helicopter, and whether he was shot in the head or abdomen. IDF denies any knowledge. Could this be elaborated better? CNN Ketil (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Civilian Losses/Neutrality Issue

Why are all Palestinian civilian losses denoted as being 'claims' (and rightly so) by each belligerent, but the Israeli civilian losses are not treated the same way? If objectivity is to be maintained, one must assume that anyone can alter their figures, even close allies of the United States. Not to mention, that count came from the defense force. Please keep the parenthetical denotations even across the board.

because israel has an organized civillian records office, and complies with international standards, whereas hamas does not, and habitually lies about casualties. 132.66.235.247 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaza man who faked injury

The section discussing the Gaza man who faked injury was tagged with a better source needed tag. The citations included from TheBlaze and American Thinker seem to be reliable sources. Would the original articles that they cite from Honest Reporting and Arutz 7 be preferable? --PiMaster3 ^talk 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

FOX News now has an article on this, can an editor add more information and cite from the following: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/20/brazen-faking-images-reveals-hamas-desperation/ --152.132.9.132 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting FOX News is a reliable source!? 94.197.127.122 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fox is about 5 times more reliable than CNN, you don't doubt them, so you have no right to doubt FOX.

If you see something in FOX you don't see in CNN or vice versa, it's because CNN entered the muslim propoganda shop and bought something for their rating, nothing more, nothing less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.201 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing numbers

The article seems to compare the number of Palestinian victims with the amount of Hamas ammunition used. In what way is the amount of ammunition important enough for the lede, and if it is, why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of rockets fired into Israel is clearly a very relevant part of the situation and article. it is appropriate for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that it is important because it is clearly important. Right.

Does someone have a better explanation? Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The rocket fire is clearly one of the primary issues of this conflict, the idea we would leave it out when many media outlets are reporting on the number of rocket attacks on Israel is unacceptable. The introduction does clearly state that there have been hundreds of Israeli airstrikes. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Straw man: I don't doubt that the rocket fire is important, I'm asking why the lede does an inventory on Hamas, but not on Israel. I also doubt that it would be "unacceptable" to leave out a piece of information from the lede, just because it is reported by the media. Please point out the policy stating this (exactly this).

My question remains unanswered: Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you why, because if IDF was to shoot something at a target, the target would be destroyed, end of story, and most of IDF's ammunition is intentionally wasted on empty structures, ammunition, factories and others.

Now when Hamas is shooting they prove to have about 50% to aim properly and then 90% that their aimed shot will be shot down by IDF's Iron-Dome system, lastly since a very large amount of Israel's buildings have shelters as it's required, even the few hits that do hit usually hit a building while the family in it is inside a shelter (thanks to IDF's alarm system) Were you to take down all of Israel's defenses and leave Israelies as open as Hamas leaves Palestinians there would have been civilians killed by around the amount of ammunition Hamas shot, that's why it's important, as they are aiming at civilians as opposed to IDF aiming at infrastructure and notifying about attacks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.201 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC) One more thing: Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

this is not about basic ammunition, this is about the number of actual rocket attacks..which are each incidents, the different types of rockets are notable because they impact on distance etc. I believe the article should clearly reference the number of air strikes carried out by Israel as that is notable too, it currently says hundreds.. but if there are specific figures as we have for the terrorist rocket fire then that should be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the ammount of strikes carried by Israel is notable as well. --Mor2 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Basic ammunition"? Israeli weapons are much more effective than some rockets from the middle of last century. How many of the Hamas rockets actually did damage? If not all did, why is the number of rockets fired more important than the number of bombs doing actual damage?

Again, Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of rocket attacks is notable, the fact they are primitive and of limited success for hamas is no reason not to include the information. I do not accept your premise that the ammunition is being emphasized over the number of victims. The introduction clearly states the loss of life on both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You again just repeat your claim, and give no reason. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, please don't say anything at all.

The effectiveness of a weapon is of paramount importance. Every child knows the number of nuclear weapons used, and with a short web search you can find the total number of test explosions. How many bullets were used in WWII? How many rifles? If Hamas rockets do almost no damage, their number is meaningless.

The initial number of rockets is in the very first sentence, the total number later, before mentioning any victims they have caused. If that is not emphasizing, what is it? The amount of detail is also noteworthy, the lede implies knowledge over the amount of weapons (not only projectiles) used. ("over 500 [...] mortars")

Again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What it seems todo is to provide a proper introduction to the topic of the article in the lead. --Mor2 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The obvious question is: Is it proper? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

proper is the domain of point of view. --Mor2 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. I ask again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic the 9/11 article "emphasis" planes or "compare" terrorist numbers with victims?! Please don't make ridicules comparisons. That "ammunition" or rather a weapon of terror, that is used indiscriminately to target civilian population, when this is google is my friend is your daily routine, I dont see anything none "proper" to state the amount of "ammunition" they had to suffer before they went to this operation.--Mor2 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there ammunition mentioned in the 9/11 article? Was it even used in the attack? I think I'm not the one making ridiculous comparison. I also am not the one with an apparent POV in this matter. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add to this conversation that every time a rocket attack is fired against Israel, an Air-raid siren is sounded. This gives civilians time to reach bomb shelters. Which means everything must stop in the area, so civilians can run to safety. Therefore, the number of rocket attacks made is noteworthy. Perhaps this background information should be provide so people are not confused about why these numbers are given. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to explain that the attacks are wrong and have a terrible effect on the population. I still don't see why the amount of ammunition used is important enough for the lede. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. Right now we can't understand from the text the danger and damage those rockets impose, they are regarded as primitive and meaningless, not as something that can disrupt the lives of one third of the Israeli civilian population(several millions), ond daily basis, sending them to the air raid shelters... --Mor2 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But can they be regarded as disruptive if most of them don't have victims, ie. are literally harmless? Why is a similar level of detail to spend to describe the "disruptiveness" of the Israeli attacks? --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, somebody firing hundreds of rockets at somebody is notable. Removing this information would be daft. OTOH, I think there's a good case for including the number of missions, air strikes, or similar by the IDF. Any numbers available? Is IDF OK as a source? Ketil (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you just entered the discussion by calling me stupid, and with a straw man. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you stupid, but I think your argumentation is. The number of rockets is important, as it is Israel's primary justification for the attacks. That they are "ammunition" or what other conflict articles say, isn't relevant. Ketil (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anyone calling you stupid, im afraid that it does appear you are in a minority though. Most seem to have no problem with the introduction stating the figures in question and people who have replied have supported their inclusion. We just need additional stats on Israeli airstrikes etc and they would be worthy of inclusion too. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet again you try to score with a fallacy, ie. lie: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The only fallacy here is yours. Every article on wikipidea about operations, first outline the reason/goals, then outline the result.--Mor2 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to all the above, Hamas's goal in firing all those rockets is hurting civilians. The reason of the relatively few Israeli casualties are the air-raid sirens and the Iron Dome system, neither of which is foolproof. It is not the rockets that are ineffective, (indeed, look what great damage was caused by the few rockets that were not intercepted by Iron Dome) but Israel's defences that are extremely effective. If I am attacked in the street by four armed men but manage to escape through having studied martial arts, it is not the same as not having been attacked. Therefore, the number of rockets launched at Israel by Hamas is relevant. In addition, even when a rocket does not take lives, it destroys buildings - people's homes. And as for the Iron Dome, each of its missiles costs $62,000 (). Thus, when the Hamas rockets don't cause damage, they take a heavy toll on Israel economy. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that their effect is mostly psychological, which is exactly their intended purpose, hamas intentionally target civilians to terrorise them (i.e. terrorist). See also Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Effects. --Mor2 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that you normally can't use youtube videos as sources, but the IDF has "recap videos" which state how many air strikes they have performed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udmwJ9Wfj5g&feature=share 213.57.149.188 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

While the POV stacking war continues

And this page looks like an IDF print-out with some marginal annotations by al-Qaeda, could some serious editors review the page as a whole. There are numerous whopping errors, many copied and plastered from other bad pages. Here's one.

Following Hamas's violent seizure of power in the Gaza Strip from rival Palestinian group Fatah, after the former's victory in legislative elections in 2007, Israel navally blockaded the enclave,making Gaza's economic and humanitarian position precarious.[23]A UN report stated that Israel’s blockade was both legal and appropriate.[54]

This breaks all sorts of rules, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc. but the first sentence is self-contradictory, while the second is deceptive synthesis of an irrelevant fact, sourced to another period.

• (a) The sentence contradicts itself, since it says, Hamas won in the legislative elections in 2007 and then violently seized power from the loser of those elections. That is unbelievably stupid, aside from reflecting an Israeli POV as historical fact.

(b) As David Rose reported The Gaza Bomshell, at Vanity Fair April 2008, Hamas, after winning the election, was threatened with an American-backed PNA coup, and acted to defend the electoral result on the Strip only after learning of the coup. Via Israel Fatah, which had some 35,000 men on the ground in Gaza, was supplied with truckloads of weaponry, refused to place the forces under Hamas control, Hamas had 6,000 men. The impression given by the phrasing, apart from the garbled contradiction, is that Hamas was unilaterally acting in a violent manner, and that the blockade was imposed directly as a result of this. A land blockade was imposed after Hamas won the elections, and preemptively struck to stop the PNA, with US, Israeli and Egyptian support, from overthrowing the results.

• Here this is spun as a violent seizure of power by (terroristic) Hamas, which caused Israel to put a blockade in place which had international legitimation.

• (c) It is also untrue because the naval blockade that was the subject of the UN deliberation here is cited as justifying its legality, refers to the naval blockade Israel imposed in 2009, two years after 2007 (when Israel simply imposed a land blockade).
• In the UN judgement 'Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident here,', cited by our source (the New York Times), Israel itself argued that it had set up the said blockade in January 2009 (p.27)
• Turkey argued that it had been in place since 2007, but the Palmer report supported Israel's argument that the naval blockade was imposed in late January 2009 ('the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009.' p.39). It is that naval blockade which was vindicated as legal, not the land blockade of 2007. Etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence contradicts itself, since it says, Hamas won in the legislative elections in 2007 and then violently seized power from the loser of those elections. That is unbelievably stupid, aside from reflecting an Israeli POV as historical fact.

  it might sound less stupid if you read about Battle of Gaza (2007). --Mor2 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Too busy as a relative newbie to read policy and discover that wikipedia is not a reliable source?Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Its just faster to link you to an article, than explaining how you sounded making your claims.--Mor2 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In the time you spent putting together your little presentation you could have fixed it yourself and run around the block ten times. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the line about UN supporting the Israeli blockade is POV. Some UN state the the block is illegal, as does the Red Cross. We need to reflect the multiple viewpoints, not just one.VR _talk 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• your info is little outdated here UN report Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal

There are certainly some wording/grammar issues, but i do not except this POV claim. The primary focus of this post challenges a blatant factually accurate statement. Hamas won an election, months later they carried out a violent coup overthrowing Fatah in the Gaza strip. This can clearly be sourced and there is an entire article on it. That is NOT bias! Sadly there are some who seem to just come here and throw around the POV line without seeking to properly just improve the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this part is relevant to the topic: "After winning the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, Hamas eventually assumed complete power over the Gaza Strip in June 2007. The intervening period had been riven with bloody interfactional conflict, which culminated in a rapid and brutal seizure of complete military control from its rival Fatah, which, though defeated at the polls was reportedly working, with U.S. logistical and technical assistance, to overthrow the democratically elected government." This is not about the Hamas/PA conflict, Hamas POV in that conflict is irrelevant to Israel. Their only concern was that a terrorist Islamist fundamentalist organization, that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and seeks to establish an Islamic state on the entire territory of the State of Israel setup shop on their step looking to arm itself. --Mor2 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And Israel does not recognize the Palestinian right to exist as a people with statehood. It's POV to call Hamas 'terrorist'. As to 'not relevant to Israel' therefore the edit is invalid, well, we are obliged to underwrite a principle of neutrality, and whatever our POVs, we must not represent any one 'actor' in the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A. its not true. B its irrelevant. Hamas armed take over is the catalyst for this conflict. There is a reason why its called Gaza–Israel conflict and not and palestinian-Israel conflict, its because all armed conflict since then were only with Hamas controlled Gaza. So the take over is important background and your speculation as to why they did it is not important, especially as you only put your POV of the why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you believe personally that Hamas is to blame for everything. Plenty of sources will back that. Many sources think the world is far more complex than this black/white simplification, and that (Mearsheimer and Walt) both sides are culpable for the present conflict. Again, WP:NPOV demands that editors balance an article for neutrality. Consistently editing for one POV violates a central protocol of wikipedia. I do not speculate. I read books, and notice key elements that are not mentioned by editors, and add them (to find them almost invariably removed).Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said this article is not about Fatah–Hamas conflict, thus hamas motives to stage a coup d'état are not relevant to this operation(you might want to check Gaza–Israel conflict). Also the amount of detail you provided on the Fatah–Hamas situation, which portraying only the Hamas narrative, violates WP:NPOV, only serving to legitimize Hamas actions. --Mor2 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

They won the election, so it is not a coup d'etat. That Hamas is in power in Gaza may be relevant to the recent conflict, but your personal view of the way they got to be in power is not relevant. PerDaniel (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

POV, OR in background section

On the subject of synthesis, can you provide any sources that link the "background" paragraph to the present conflict, as it appears that some editors are using this article to grandstand and present a partisan background presentation without any sources connecting this with recent events. Editors have selectively plucked their favorite Gaza trivia out of the poupourri of history and assembled a disjointed paragraph based entirely on original research. Sources please. Ankh.Morpork 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything specific you are referring to? Or are you saying that all sources mentioned in Background should also mention the present conflict?VR _talk 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sources should provide the background, not editors interpolating their personal take of the historical context. I think the destruction of the second temple has some bearing on the rexcent events, can I include it? Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That would require a major purging of the background section, as it seems most sources currently used do not refer to this conflict. I'm all in favor of having sources provide the background, but we need to get consensus here before anyone goes about purging the background of such sources. And once that consensus is achieved, this standard needs to be applied equally to Israeli and Palestinian POVs alike.VR _talk 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Ankh.Morpork 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that it is WP:SYNTH to provide a background to any breaking event described in a wikipedia article with details not given by the breaking news articles themselves. Were that applied, there would be no background details for any article on contemporary events, for the simple reason that journalism, unlike scholarship, doesn't strive to lose its readership by covering the past. There are, to the contrary, substantial scholarly sources under academic imprint covering all aspects of the events in the background, which are, often misleadingly, alluded to in the froth of rapid reportage. When newspapers note en passant the background details, it is good practice to check them against the ascertained historical records produced by specialist scholarship, and employ the latter rather than the newsrags, which are, in any case, caught up in the pressures of spin, a notable part of all official coverage of conflicts. That is not compatible with the encyclopedic ambitions of wikipedia, which is not a sewage outlet for ephemeral journalistic slants.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask me my three main priorities for an article and I tell you sources, sources, sources. Stop fabricating an illusory background composed of jaundiced viewpoints and cherrypicked facts of which no source support their relevancy. Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

?Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some amount of background can be gleaned from news article, even breaking news ones. Furthermore, this conflict has produced a whole host of analysis articles where writers ask "how on earth did we get here" and aim to provide the background.

Currently I see the background section swelling with claims and counter-claims. We need to put a check on that. Can you think of a way to ensure background information is concise?VR _talk 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be a pushover if we could link to wiki articles on the background that have been sedulously constructed to provide a balanced picture. Unfortunately few of them are, they are mostly patchy messes, the result of shortsighted POV warring. The only alternative is the art of précis, once the key facts are established. So we need some patience there. My edit, for one, could certainly be whittled down. I made it because the prior edit omitted Fatah, and blamed Hamas. Both reacted violently, enagaging in factional internecine warfare between Jan 2006 and June 13 2007, and I thought that to single out Hamas (the 'terrorists') was tantamount to quietly ignoring the documented fact that Fatah and the PNA (internationally recognized as legitimate representatives despite the shattering of their electoral base) lost the elections, and were directed to stage a coup. The result was a notable 15 months of mutual slaughter. I'd appreciate it if you could have a go at cutting my edit back, while retaining the gist. It's rather late here, unfortunately. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Without studying diffs and discussions too carefully, I do get the impression that some editors may be adding volumes of POV info daily, without getting "in trouble for reverting" others material. (Of courseee, they may be disruptive in making it necessary for others to waste a revert on their WP:Undue material.)

To what ever extent I am correct, keep in mind the 2008 Israel Palestine arbitration still very much in effect: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editorial_process which reads Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited... and the following dispute resolution section reads: Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

So if an editor just keeps adding 300-500 words of a certain POV over and over again, despite discussion here, one might consider taking them to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard (listing a bunch of diffs) and mentioning the WP:ARBPIA case which makes such editing problematic. If the volunteers there also find these edits problematic and the person persists, it could be a reason to ban them from the article. CarolMooreDC 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A general background is necessary. But what of the 'pre-operational' section? Am I wrong in thinking this is a complete violation of NPOV? It creates the impression of a vacuum, of a quiet peaceful country suffering continual unprovoked assault from that terroristic ghetto that is Gaza. Numerous studies over 2001-2012 have shown that it is extremely difficult to disentangle the tit-for-tat logic of IDF-and-Gazan conflict. Incidents between the two occur almost daily. To me this editing looks like a rerun of what happened back in 2008-2009, which then became the object of an analysis by Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki (see for example here which argued that the reportage on 'who caused it' in mainstream newspapers was merely meme recycling of a comfortable cliché. Jonathan Cook doesn't deal with the thickets of actions and counter-actions over the preceding several months, but he does outline a snippet of how the Palestinian side might have seen the outbreak of hostilities, in hisWhy Gaza Must Suffer Again at Counterpunch 19 November 2012 (alternatively here at OpEdNews, 18 November 2012. (Some will challenge the source, but there's worse in the article) Can you write such an extensive section as the one we have, with such a singular multiplication of Israeli sources on Palestinian rockets, without mention of what Israel does in its daily operations in the air, off the shore, and on land in its blockade? Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You certainly may when reliable sources opine likewise. A cornucopia of mainstream news articles have accredited the rocket-firing with instigating the conflict. Other circumstances should also be expressly linked to the conflict. Ankh.Morpork 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are sources present which touch on many on the items mentioned in the background, such as the occupation, blockade, the previous Gaza war, recent aggressions, etc, and conjoin these items to the current hostilities. That there are sources used which offer further detail upon these items without themselves mentioning the ongoing hostilities is unimportant so long as a source does conjoin them. Sepsis II (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS

In response to this allegation of synthesis: WP:SYNTHESIS states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No conclusion was given, either directly or implied. [6] did not violate synthesis either; however, I felt that the change was an improvement. Ryan Vesey 23:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your change is unnecessary. It doesn't even concern allegations about war crimes. It looks more like an attempt to balance out content you don't like with something more positive about the side you sympathize with. Guinsberg (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not my change. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That being said, my revert was performed solely because it was not a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm neutral on whether or not the information should remain in the paragraph. The rest of the article makes it clear that the countries in question support Israel's right to defend itself; however, the belief that Israel's actions weren't war crimes is relevant to a section on war crimes. Ryan Vesey 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This the whole point, the WHOLE paragraph has nothing todo with war crimes, self defense is justification, lack of it makes you an aggressor, which doesn't mean you committed a war crimes (i.e. broke the rules of armed conflict) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that would be synthesis. Information cannot go into the paragraph that states war crimes did or did not occur based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what is and is not a war crime, even if that interpretation is supported by a source. Being on the defense doesn't absolve any party from war crimes if they commit them. Information stating that some countries have stated no war crimes were committed would be more relevant; however, I believe that is unlikely to be found. See this article which mentions a UN statement that both sides committed war crimes. Israel "committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity" because their operations "were carefully planned in all their phases as a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population". Ryan Vesey 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad, that was an old article. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That section detail specific war crimes(see also) not list any reaction that mention the word war crime. Tough some people think that multiple section means multiple opportunities for copy/past POV pushing. Which is why you see UNRWA part copy pasted in both 'Criticism of IDF media campaign' and 'Media coverage'--Mor2 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That the UNRWA contradicted the IDF narrative and clearly said no rockets were being launched at Israel from its facilities, is a fact. The only POV was someone's attempt to alter the content to have it to read that UNRWA's sole concern regarded the logos, not the IDF allegations. The content is relevant to both the IDF media campaign and to video coverage of the conflict, that's why it was mentioned on both sections. Guinsberg (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only POV was when someone changed the focus from UNRWA complicity in the actions shown in that video, to Hamas tactics at large. Also various sections cover different aspects of the even't, which is not meant a copy paste of as many referenced content you can find but actually addressing the different aspects as I did with UNRWA response in the campaign section.--Mor2 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What actions shown in the fake video that the IDF eventually removed? And by the way, your bias is showing. Accepting that the UNRWA indeed partakes in attacks against Israel, even if passively, is proof that your perceptions on this conflict are so skewed and distorted, that we'd all profit if you just abstained from further editing on this article. Guinsberg (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The material I removed was synthetic. It explicitly contrasted NATO&co's endorsement of Israel's actions with Turkey and Iran's reactions in a way that used the editorial voice to imply that Turkey and Iran's reactions were unjustified or extreme. It would be acceptable to contrast the reactions in this way if we had a source that also did so, but we didn't. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What's more, the West's support for the Israeli offensive is mentioned several times throughout the article. Why comment on it in a section — that on allegations of war crimes — with doesn't even have anything to do? Guinsberg (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually you could just removed the first word will and leave the rest of the sentence just as it is shown in the lead.--Mor2 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy you agree that those were 'Turkey and Iran's reactions' and thus should be moved to the Reactions sections. --82.81.24.39 (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Person Killed after Ceasefire

According to the NYTimes article cited 'A spokesman for the Israeli military said soldiers had fired warning shots and then at the feet of some Palestinians who tried to cross the border fence into Israeli territory' however the Wikipedia article does not not this but rather claims the person was killed after venturing into the border area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.193.81 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties

"Palestinian casualties have also occurred in areas where no fighting is reported to have happened and allegations that warnings had been given by the IDF to civilians so as to allow them to flee before shelling have been challenged. BBC Arabic photojournalist Jihad Masharawi lost his baby son and sister-in-law to an Israeli airstrike, even though, according to him, his residential neighborhood in the Sabra district saw no fighting before Israel's attack.[328][329] On 19 November 2012, an Israeli airstrike killed eight members of the Dalu family, including four children as well as two neighbors.[330] The family had no known connections to Gazan militants.[330] Competing theories for the attack were offered. One Israeli paper stated the IDF believed a militant was inside while two others said the wrong house was targeted.[330] An IDF spokeswoman stated that the event was an accident and the target was a man responsible for launching 200—300 rockets into Israel.[331] A surviving family member denied that a warning had been given to his family to flee the home: "They didn’t give us a warning. They just hit the house with the children in it. My daughters were in their youth. What did they do to them?".[331] The IDF policy of targeting family homes of alleged militants has been criticized due to the high potential of civilian casualties that it can produce.[332]"

1. Weasel wording, the first sentence try to imply more than is offered in the next two referenced events, furthermore it ignore the 142 Palestinian rockets that fell inside gaza strip territory, at least one of them caused damage and the death of the little boy.(presumably in an area where no fighting or warnings were reported).
2. What does it means "Competing theories"? and why there are two, remove theories part and leave only the IDF statement. (also according to the IDF statement it was a mistake, so I am not certain that this part is necessary "The family had no known connections to Gazan militants").
3. clear POV pushing: "They didn’t give us a warning. They just hit the house with the children in it. My daughters were in their youth. What did they do to them?"
4. As for the last sentence. "Criticized" by who? and what does it have todo with the casualties section? You might want to make your case in the war crimes section, but then to avoid POV issues, I suggest you add one of the sources that state that Israeli tactics are unprecedented in the warning and the ratio of civilian casualties.--82.81.24.39 (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

1. There's no weasel wording - no value judgment is expressed and no opinion is made to pass as truth. All it does is notice that certain allegations that have been made, have been made - whether they are true or not, isn't something about which the excerpt you criticize even takes a position. That there have been reports of Israeli strikes on areas where no fighting was occurring is a fact; read the account given by Jihad Misharawi. About Palestinian casualties not caused by Israel, notice there are a two whole sections on them. Combined, they even surpass in length the paragraphs about Israeli-caused deaths, even though the latter far outnumbered the former. Giving even more attention to Palestinian-caused Palestinian casualties would only further enhance the already pronounced pro-IDF bias in those sections.
2. By "competing theories", we mean that two or more irreconcilable theories have been presented to explain one single event. That's why they are 'competing'.
3. Do you even know what is POV? That quote's not POV pushing -- it's the witness account of a surviving member of a family victmized by an Israeli strike. Furthermore, the man's words are reported for what they are, that is, as the account of a man, not as a truth per se (notice they are in quotes), and that account is at least as worth of inclusion on this entry as the IDF claims to the media that it has warned all civilians in the areas they have shelled: a claim, by the way, that was given space on the article before the al-Dalu quote you want to suppress. Wikipedia doesn't ask of editors that they suppress any and all opinions and allegations; what we must do, rather, is to report opinions and allegations for what they are, that is, not as an absolute truth (nor as a lie that should be suppressed).
4. The IDF policy of shelling the family homes of alleged militants, and criticism of the potential civilian death toll it can bring about, have both a lot to do with Palestinian casualties, and thus are worth mentioning on that section. It's rather incredible you can't see the point. You may present us with sources praising the "unprecedented" measures the IDF has supposedly taken to avoid civilian deaths (claims about which are already on the article), but mind you: for every praise for the IDF tactics, one can find one other source that criticizes them. That the IDF does take serious measures to protect civilians is, as far as anyone can know, not a truth per se, but a claim, one that is highly contested (and of course, criticisms of IDF policies and claims are themselves contested). An by way of personal comment, I think that the rate of civilian deaths on the Palestinian side -- about two-thirds of all casualties in this latest conflict -- are unimpressive and does not speak well of the precision or care of Israel's strikes. In fact, it represents a deterioration over the rate of Operation Cast Lead, over which the UN conclued that Israel was intentionally attacking civilian posts and infrastructure. 186.212.141.246 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So much pointless arguments. #2. There is no reason to quote a paper, which quotes 3 other papers who guess what was the reason, when an official statement was released #3. This account doesn't add anything new, only repeating the sentence before in an emotional way, something that we have been avoiding for both sides. #4. criticism of tactics should go into section that deals with tactics(war crimes here?) This is just another example of POV pushing by repeating the same point in as many sections you can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

New information has come to light showing that there is a good change that Masharawi was killed by an erran Paletinian rocket: paragraph 39 of the Human Rights Commission article: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A.HRC.22.35.Add.1_AV.pdf In fact this incident is listed by them as an example of war crimes commited by Hamas. jon141.0.34.138 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

War crimes committed by Hamas

The section on alleged war crimes committed by Hamas focuses almost exclusively on how Hamas rocket attacks affect Palestinians and their use of human shields. That is good information and should be kept, but this section should also discuss the targeting of Israeli civilians by Hamas. Right now all that is said about that is a mention of two condemnations by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. Hamas rocket attacks against Israel are considered war crimes in general by human rights groups, and that should be stated in the article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox (everything about the infobox goes here)

Strength

I am not 100% sure how this works in wiki really but from other pages I can see that only forces that actually took part in fighting are usually considered as such. There was no ground entrance on Israel's part and while many reserves were recruited in the end they didn't participate in fighting. This operation was done entirely from the air with little artillery also added a couple of times on the last days. Hence I think and correct me if I am wrong that under the Israeli forces only IDF's air force, intelligence and southern artillery should be counted, maybe along with saying that the reserves were recruited but not used (I'd also like to point out, many of the reserves were sent to the north's borders in case there will be an attack from there too, which in the end also didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.142.97 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

The infobox map ignores rocket attacks on israeli cities. Would it not be possible to include a second image or edit the first to have an additional map showing the different levels of rocket fire into israel? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the conflict is no about the gaza strip. I have changed the map, it now show both gaza and the areas of the conflict mentioned in the article(I dont want to spam the article with two iamges, so i didn't add them both, but in case some decide it is needed here is the previous map)--Mor2 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, The image in the info box is not completely accurate as rockets (Fajr-5) have fallen as far away as Southern Jerusalem and the Etzion Block. I would recommend changing it to this image from the BBC http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64164000/gif/_64164468_hamas_rockets464x458.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.199.10 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The rings I added are based on the range of those rockets not where they aim them, i also used an overlay of an official map to confirm its correct. We had a far better map, but it was commercial and removed. This one is Public Domain. --Mor2 (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case it is not areas affected: it is areas that could potentially be affected, and given the very slight likelihood of most of those areas ever being affected it is exaggeration to the point of scaremongering. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image has been removed

The infobox image has been removed due to it being up for deletion for copyright issues. [7] can someone please make a similar image if they are able? Showing the range of rocket attacks like that one? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

it is not as good as the previous one, but this is the best I could do File:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense.png --Mor2 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, that is far better than no image at all and shows the basics still. 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That is appallingly inaccurate. The article is about the Israeli action, and the areas affected exclude the Gaza strip! By what possible reckoning can Gaza be deemed irrelevant to this action? Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand how is Gaza deemed irrelevant, if its in the middle of the "areas affected in the conflict"? --Mor2 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it is colour keyed the same as the areas of Jordan and Egypt that are visible: a neutral grey indicating (by default) non-involvement (as has been pointed out to Mor2 twice already). The article is about Israel's military action (it is not titled 2012 Gaza War), and yet only parts of Israel are highlighted in a map of "areas affected". Unless Israeli forces are using Grad and Fajr rockets against these areas, the map is inappropriate, misleading, and highly biased. Kevin McE (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mor2, did you make this map? If possible, I think Gaza should be highlighted in a distinct color. Ideally, the 2 rocket areas could be combined and represented by one color. Capscap (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

no problem, any preference? As for the two rocket areas it is there for informational purpose, since most of the attacks mentioned in the text(and previous conflict) relate to the first zone one.--Mor2 (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No preference here :) (I just worry that gray makes it look like its a neutral/unaffected area). I worry that the legend creates a POV issue because it only highlights the range of Hamas rocket attacks, but I don't know of a good solution for that. Thanks for your work!. Capscap (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, I highlighted and made several other changes(you can see them in the change log).

• The current image does not reflect a NPOV. It articulates only one beligerent's use of force. This image needs to remove all indication of use of force or it needs to somehow show them both. Mahosian (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite some improvement, the lack of NPOV of the image if insufficiently counteracted by the caption. The title of this article is Operation Pillar of Defense: the picture tells nothing about that campaign. It might serve a purpose illustrating other sections of the article, but is not suitable for the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE. The whole idea to visualize *areas* affected right in the beginning of article gives the impression that the war is all about the *Israeli* suffering. If an illustration is used at all, it should rather reflect military strength or casualities.Argusögat (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012

Copied from above:

The current image does not reflect a WP:NPOV. It articulates only one beligerent's use of force. This image needs to remove all indication of use of force or it needs to somehow show them both. Mahosian (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Update: The image has just been changed. It has been changing multiple times over the last few days. Perhaps Wikipedia users can agree on an image to use rather than fluctuate back and forth every day. Mahosian (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Further Updates: 1) the image has been changed once again. 2) Somebody removed this edit request. I have reinstated it. Please note that this is different than the map discussion below, as this deals with how the article is to be graphically represented by one single image. Mahosian (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It was already explained that this map has nothing todo with use of force, it only put in to gegorphical context the effected areas(i.e. all of Gaza and relevant parts of Israel). Seeing as this still caused confusion, I have removed the names of the rockets. (To avoid confusion, please try to keep all discussion related to maps in one place, infobox or otherwise, as it is we have at least 3 discussions and its hard to keep track of them)--Mor2 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Strength

Can somebody add the figures for Hamas? It's estimated to have 10,000 active fighters and 20,000 in reserve. [RS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20388298] I believe these are the same numbers used in the Hamas article. Capscap (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Up to 75,000" in the Info Box's Strength of Israel force is incorrect. The source points that Israeli government confirmed the drafting of up to 75,000 reservists. The IDF active force is much larger. According to the Wikipedia article of IDF it is 176,500. So the Info Box should say "176,500 active and up to 75,000 reservists". Someone with editing privileges please fix this. 109.186.109.222 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you are correct, so I've updated it to indicate this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And also in the infobox, the strength for the combatants 2 parameter might be slightly off. The article was published by the Israeli government in 2007. Just a heads up to anybody who wants to find more recent numbers. -- Luke (Talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Do we need to list all of the Israeli General Staff? (We dont list all the hamas commanders) I think that Prime Minister, Minister of Defense and Chief of General Staff--Mor2 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• General Gantz is only in charge of IDF. This is however an operation with huge Shin Bet involvement. Netanyahu even made a statement thanking Yoram Cohen for it. Shin Bet's director should be listed. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you think it is appropriate please do(I dont know enough about 'Shin Bet' or Israeli military structure in general), my objection was only to the inclusion of every member of their General Staff. --Mor2 (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Since the Navy was involved in shelling targets in the Gaza Strip shouldn't the Navy Chief be put back in as one of the combatants? Padres Hana (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

• Do we need the to list the "policeman"? last I checked policeman are civilians as well.--Mor2 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It becoming more and more confusing, right now the Palestinian count militant/civilian is based on source 7, which states that "The campaign has killed more than 130 Palestinians, including dozens of civilians". However the estimates based on this source are 79 + 53 = 132. Additionally, it stated that a policeman killed, in an outdated sources that I can only assume its already included in the previous figure. Later it is stated that "8 Palestinians executed by Hamas", its not understood if this in addition to all the previous estimates or part of a different count, please clarify this.--Mor2 (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is included, but I don't think it belongs there. Most Palestinian died from Israeli fire, but some likely from friendly fire, as well as these executions. Casualties are casualties - causes can be discussed in the article, IMO. --Ketil (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox says 70+ Israeli civilians were killed, but there is no source given. ypnypn (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see someone deleted it. ypnypn (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Whats the point of protecting the article if the citations still arent used properly? since yesterday a new citation is used for palestinian casualties, which are now claimed at 19 combatants and 19 civilians by wikipedia, but the citation doesn't say that, it says: "Officials in Gaza said 41 Palestinians, nearly half of them civilians including eight children and a pregnant woman, had been killed since Israel began its air strikes. Three Israeli civilians were killed by a rocket on Thursday."

19+19=38, so wikipedia provides only one source on palestinian casualties for the infobox and contradicts that source by deciding EXACTLY how many dead were combatants and civilians when the source isn't exact AND by deleting three of the casualties (for no apparent reason)

try again, wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am sure that there many estimates out there, but until anything can be authenticated I think that we should stick to the official Palestinian and Israeli figures. Palestinian because no one knows better than they, how many people enter their morgues and Israeli to avoid classification bias.(militant civilian) --Mor2 (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I request that the civilian and military casualties and losses should be merged.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why has Ahmed Jabari been removed from the infobox list of leaders/commanders?

Why has Ahmed Jabari, chief of the Gaza military wing of Hamas been removed from the infobox? Surely he should remain listed despite his death? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We get quite a few people on this page complaining of the article being Israeli POV, well im seeing plenty of examples of what i view as biased edits that benefit the palestinian pov. Such as removal of this guy from the infobox, removal of the list of terrorists killed by the IDF in this military operation etc. BritishWatcher(talk) 11:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I found the edit here: "If he was killed in the first action of the campaign, he cannot have commanded in the campaign. Christan-centric icon to indicate death highly inappropriate in context.) User:Kevin McE. I think the explanation is reasonable. Capscap (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian civilian losses not complete

The number of Palestinians injured should be added just as the Israel injured have already been added. I hear on the radio that over a thousand injured. Bahrain News Agency article gives over 1100 injured, article quote "more than 1100 minor children, women and elderly men were wounded" at http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/534198 Abject Normality (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd all rather that this article had FACTS in it and not Muslim imagination, didn't you claim victory like with every single other operation before? Then you should enjoy it rather than making things up.

Hamas claims 971 wounded, and we know most are militants, no need to inflate it you already have the public's affection even without lying.79.180.142.201 (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Background (everything about the background goes here)

previous to November 10

it should be mentioned that previously to November 10 the palestinians also put road side bombs injuring an idf soldier along with firing some 20 rockets into israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.164 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How recently before November 10? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

4 days prior.Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

i believe rocket attacks began from october 24th with 65 frockets fired on israel on that day http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/five_hurt_as_gaza_rockets_pummel_israels_south , and subseqently continued and escalated on nov 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.46 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

not a big event firstly, i don't think that other sources said about this,thirdly pro israeli source talking about the conflict aren't that reliable Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This conflict started October 24th There can be no question about it. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/

This conflict started when Israel killed children playing football. The source for that is CNN and it was on of many edits that were mysteriously removed. --Moemin05 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article at http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/15/israelgaza-avoid-harm-civilians from Human Rights Watch that is an analysis of the news reports (which incidentally begins by imploring Palestinian groups to halt rocket attacks) and seems quite unbiased, states the following: "The current round of fighting began on November 8, during an incursion by Israeli forces into southern Gaza, east of Khan Yunis". scottwilleke (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Gaza's economic and humanitarian position has been perilous since Israel enacted its closure policy on the enclave in 2007." I think this violates NPOV - this is Hamas's position, which is denied by Israel and many other people. Inkbug (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be denied by Israel, but it is supported by other, more independent sources, such as the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247786.stm PerDaniel (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, GAZA economy were completely dependent on Israel in employment, exports etc and following the disengagement, they economy plummeted. Unlike the PA in the west bank, Hamas spend little on housing, educational and civilian infrastructure. The hamas tries to pin this on the naval blockade, but it only server to minimize weapon export, food and other exports are freely flowing from Egypt and Israel.
So I would ask to refrain from things that are out of scope of this article and thus cannot be explained from all POV and stick to the leads of the conflict and the previous operation.--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no right to censor us on here, Mor2. Gaza's humanitarian situation is a relevant factor in these events.--212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not out of the scope of this article, Mor2 as it is referenced by one beligerent as part of its motive for its attacks. One can follow this with "Israel denies these claims," but the starting point is 100% relevant.

As for the starting date, there are many antecedents, but I reluctantly admit that this timeline should begin on November 14. --Mahosian (talk) 3:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"background"

In this edit [8] User:Dlv999 reinserted material in violation of WP policies -- namely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We can go back in time forever for "background" but we are limited to what the reliable sources consider the "background", not our OR or synthesis. I invite User:Dlv999 to defend her actions or to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This might help settle what specific date should be the start: "The strikes came after five days of rising tensions along the Gaza border which began on Saturday [Nov. 10] when Palestinian fighters fired an anti-tank rocket at an army jeep, sparking Israeli fire which killed seven." [9] Israeli sources also mention the jeep attack as being a sort-of starting point: "The violence was renewed when Islamic Jihad terrorists fired an anti-tank missile at an IDF Jeep carrying out a routine patrol on the Israeli side of the border on Saturday, striking the vehicle directly and wounding four soldiers." [10] Therefore, I think specific events before November 10 should not be included and the subsection should start with the attack on the jeep. Capscap (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If we have a cut off date then fine, but as it stands the article documents rocket attacks by Palestinians in October and a Palestinian road side bomb on 5th of November. The material Brewcrew removed was about an Israeli attack on the 5th of November. Deleting material describing violence from one side while leaving earlier violence from the other side in the article is not consistent with WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also For WP:NPOV on the starting point see[11]: :"Israel claims the flare-up began Saturday when Palestinian militants fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli jeep on the Gaza border, injuring four soldiers. Israel shelled Palestinian targets in response, after which Palestinian groups launched their barrage of rockets into southern Israel over the next two days, with Israel shelling still more targets in Gaza."

"Hamas says the violence stemmed from an Israeli incursion into Gaza two days earlier. Four tanks and an armoured bulldozer drove 100 to 200 metres into central Gaza Thursday in order to root out explosives in a tunnel that had been unearthed. During the action, a 13-year-old boy was killed when the Israelis returned fire from Palestinian fighters. That incident triggered a series of small attacks leading to the Saturday anti-tank firing, Palestinians say."Dlv999 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote abouve, this started back in late October. Arguments about November's activities are meaningless. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including both versions, assuming it is similarly reported as such in other sources, but DLV's edit did not include both versions and remains unsourced specifically as to the background.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All I did was revert your edit. You deleted reference to an Israeli attack on the 5th of November while leaving in material related to October rocket attacks and a November 5th attack by Palestinians. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed unsourced material and you reinserted unsoured material. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

.This is not an effort to politicize, but I am having significant trouble with newspapers to figure out when rocket-fir began to escalate. I had to read pretty far into the Wiki. The following passage is non-specific, has a typo, and uses an ambiguous antecedent: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations.[7] This operation comes after several Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missles." I propose changing it to this: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations.[7] Israeli newspapers report increased fire from Gaza on November 10 and 11. [source:http://www.timesofisrael.com/air-force-strikes-multiple-terror-targets-in-gaza/] Operation Pillar of Clud comes after initial Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missiles." Lysis.strata (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone has made an edit and improved the sentence in question along the lines you suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculation in Background?

Regarding this section in the Background section:

Israel will hold elections for the Knesset on 22 January 2013, and some sources (including Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan[30]) suggest the operation was timed to improve the current government's electoral prospects. Israel denies that the operation is related to the elections.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, should this person opinion be in the background section?

He is the PM of a powerful neighboring country, and NATO member, so I think his opinion is interesting, regardless of whether he's correct. Ketil (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Opions are like.. lets just say that everyone has them, but this is not background information at best it is motives, where you can place those speculations. As for Erdogan, lets just say that he is a powerful and he is needed. As for his opinion and my interest in them, I think that the wikilekas from two years ago hit it on the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Turkish PMs view is totally inappropriate for the background section. It would be notable for the table on international reaction, but not in the background section. Support someone making the necessary changes. Will make them myself tomorrow if this has not been addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The material is cited by a number of RS as one of the factors involved in the buildup to the current outbreak of violence. RS report it as relevant to the buildup therefore per WP:NPOV it should be discussed as a significant viewpoint in the build up. Wikipedia reports all significant views, not just the ones that happen to fit with the official Israeli narrative. Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A Turkish politician's unfounded suppositions are not lead-worthy. They can be included in the table of responses if at all. Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not going to be just one long tract explicating the Israeli opinion. We report all significant views published in RS. If you check the cited sources as well as Erdogan, RS report that analysts have also listed the Israeli election as a factor in the outbreak of violence. Dlv999 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Many unrelated foreign parties have accused Israel of doing this for the elections. Would you like a list? --Moemin05 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to someone adding claims about the election into the international responses table. But it is totally inappropriate to include 1 leaders views in the background information section. Otherwise why cant others be included too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not one leaders views, please read the article and read the cited sources. Having a discussion about what editors erroneously believe is in the article is not a productive way to move the article forward. Erdogan was among the people who have expressed this viewpoint, he is not the only person to have expressed it. It is clearly a significant view about the background to the violence and should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In politics views are motivated by self serving interests. Evener since Erdogan failed to join Turkey with the EU, he has been trying to gain more influence in the middle east, using several tactics to gain more popularity with people of the region. I can make a magic 8 ball from his opinions. Regardless, Why is Erdogan reaction shouldn't be placed with the rest under the International reaction section? --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deal with the point we are raising. Many unrelated parties have related this event to the elections. It is not Erdogan alone. You are capable of googling this yourself. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And other unrelated parties attribute it to the hamas and they are all gathered in the international reaction section. You are capable to scrolling down yourself. --Mor2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That opinion is represented already - your POV refuses to acknowledge the other's, and refuse to include the numerous parties who accuse the Israelis of destroying Palestinian lives so they look good in the elections. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Background section

I posted the following for Vice regent, but he wants the discussion to be here so I will move it here.

I don't understand your edit, [1]. You write "Israel occupied Gaza Strip after the Six Day war, although it removed all settlers from Gaza in 2005." Could you please change it to "Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip ever since the Six Day war". The second clause is of no relation to the first. The removal of Israeli settlers has no bearing on the 45 year military occupation of Gaza which continues unabated. Please edit it to remove the connective "although". Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation of 1967 is different from today's occupation. Back then, Israel literally occupied Gaza. Today it only controls Gaza's airspace and coast. The 2005 disengagement significantly reduced the level of Israeli occupation.VR talk 04:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how your response answers my points. Your opinions on the level of occupation is irrelevent as you are not a source on the matter of Israeli occupation. According to bodies like the United Nations or the USA, Gaza is occupied by Israel and has been for 45 years now. [12]. Sepsis II (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Israelis view Gaza as occupied. Can you suggest a neutral way to include the fact that the US and UN both consider Gaza as still occupied?VR _talk 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The following quote is from the Gaza Strip article, "The UN, Human Rights Watch and other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea (only by land)." Could we not add this how it is? Sepsis II (talk)

I removed that part and rewrote the intro for that section. Why? Because this article is not the main war article. This article is about a recent operation and info from 1967 is completely unnecessary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? The occupation is ongoing, today Israel occupies Gaza, just because they have been occupying Palestine for 45 years running does not decrease the significance that Israel occupies the Gaza Strip. Sepsis II (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That info belongs in the Gaza-Israel conflict article, not here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The occupation is of extreme importance to this article, it is a very large part of the answer to "why are these entities fighting in the first place". Please try to give a reason for the removal of the information rather than just stating as fact how you want it to be. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should mention that both the US and UN currently consider Gaza to be Israeli-occupied territory.VR _talk 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We do not appear to highlight that the European Union and United States consider HAMAS a terrorist organisation in this article either.. that would seem relevant too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably that would be covered when we state that Hamas has fired rockets into Israel. But if you want to specify that, go for it.

But I do think its important to state that Gaza is still Israeli-occupied.VR _talk 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now the background section says that Hamas hass called for the destruction of Israel since 1988. That information is too much for this context. We removed mentions of Israeli occupation of Gaza Strip in 1967, so we shouldn't be going as far back at 1988.VR _talk 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "occupation" as used here is a political term. Occupation is hardly ever used unless, Israel being the exception. In fact every similar case that I can think of, back from ww2, was never officially and consistently regarded as occupied. Also according to the letter of the law, Gaza was never occupied, but this was solved just as the Palestinian refugees, which has a unique definition on the UN page, set apart from the rest of the world. More to the point, with the removal of Israel troops and population, GAZA can't be called occupied territory, the current definition worked by US/UN and other countries regard Israel as an occupying power, to tie the gaza future with west bank, forcing Israel to work toward a broader peace solution. --Mor2 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, its unfair to say that Israel has had no military presence in Gaza since 2005. In the Gaza War, Israeli troops did invade Gaza, and there have been periodic incursions.VR _talk 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Military clashes in Gaza doesn't Constitution Israeli occupation, otherwise there is an occupation of Israel by Gaza. Furthermore, Israeli presence have been removed from gaza in 2007 and the authority over it have been handed over to the Palestinian Government in 2007. Similarly when Coalition forces in Iraq handed over authority to the Iraqi Interim Government, Iraq was no longer considered occupied. --Mor2 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Occupation is a legal term. Anyway, Vice regent, your last edit was incorrect regarding the US considering the Gaza strip to be occupied. The article you cited from 2009 does not say that the US position in 2009 was that Gaza was occupied. Additionally, the sources mentioned in the article have been updated (i.e. the CIA world factbook no longer says what CNN cites. Capscap (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN used two sources: CIA Factbook and US State department. The US State Department seems to classify Gaza Strip as "Occupied territories" in this recent report.VR _talk 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Elections

The information on elections was removed. This is information widely stated in the media. This should be restored either to the background section, or another section below.VR _talk 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also entirely unfounded, and wikipedia is not the place to explain Israeli politics. 212.29.253.97 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is well-sourced, and we do seem to explain Hamas politics, and list the countries which do and do not recognize Hamas as terrorists.VR _talk 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Information not in source

Here is a direct quote from the intro "The stated aims of the operation, which began after several days of violent exchanges in which Gaza militants fired over 100 rockets at Israeli cities and towns and Israel launched strikes on targets in Gaza leading to the death of 6 militants, are to halt the rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip[14] and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations". None of the claims made including the firing of 100 rockets or the death of the 6 militants are mentioned in the sources numbered 14 and 15. Obviously this entire line about the goal of the operation needs to be deleted since the editors are simply "paraphrasing" stuff out of the blue. 142.150.206.130 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you should spam the lead with source, but this information is sourced. The section of the lead provide a summary of events from the 'Pre-operation events' section. For example the '100 rockets' part is mentioned in sources numbered 75 80(hit Ctrl+F - 100 rockets).--Mor2 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Demand for end of blockade

Hamas has repeatedly demanded that Israel lift its blockade in exchange for ceasefire with Israel. They indicated this in June 2008, December 2008, January 2009 and December 2010. This should be stated in the background.VR _talk 06:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

POV as NOPOV

Regarding this contribution [13] "for balance". This is the background section for the Operation, not about Hamas/Israeli military strength and arsenals. Israeli stated aims of the operation are to halt rocket attacks against civilian targets originating from the Gaza. While hamas focus on the blockade and occupation. As such Hamas acquisition of Fajr 5 rockets, is not inventory check, but increase their range vastly since the gaza war, placing additional millions of civilians life at risk. While listing F-16/f-22, Apache, tanks or the atomic bomb is as irrelevant to the background as much as the caliber of Hamas/Israeli munition. (the only change there is what the IDF did to improve precision and reduce collateral damage, but I doubt that this is the "balance" that editor was looking for).--109.64.246.102 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree it seems he is trying to give WP:UNDUE weight, pushing his POV in the wrong section.--Mor2 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't CNN a WP:RS?

It appears that User:Inkbug added a tag to Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#cite_note-81. Is there some consensus that CNN is unreliable? PerDaniel (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

I'm at the point where i'm just going to go in and remove all the pro-Israel and pro-Gaza news sources that aren't being used directly for information about each group. I mean, seriously? Using a Times of Israel news source for the sentence "At Gaza's main hospital, sweet cakes were distributed in celebration"? First off, how in the hell is this encyclopedic or important? Silverseren^C 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A. The Times of Israel is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. You can take it to RS/N if you disagree.

B. Here's some video if you think the information is untrue. Not that it really changes anything because we can use ToI anyway.

C. Why is it not important? Pretend it's talking about Israelis celebrating the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians if that makes it easier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See, this is what you don't seem to get. Just because something is a reliable source doesn't mean it isn't a biased or POV source. For example, if a reliable source was talking about itself, we would consider that to be a POV source or at the very least it would be under more scrutiny than other sources, because it would clearly be biased toward itself. In this regard, the Times if Israel is a biased source when discussing things occurring in Gaza. The Times of Israel is a clearly Pro-Israel source, just like Jpost and Ynetnews. These three would be perfectly fine to use when discussing any other event in the world, but when they're discussing something that they clearly have a bias toward, it is much better to use an actual outside source. Silverseren^C 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Can you show me where WP:RS talks about "POV source"? You can ask at RS/N. Let's see what the regulars say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Support -This article is way too long. Any unnecessary details must go. No question. The sentence about the sweet cakes is completely WP:UNDUE. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's irrelevant. I read plenty of western articles reporting Israelis condoning the bombing of civilian targets but we dont include those. Things will quickly get out of hand if we add every comment on peoples behaviour. Wayne (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The Times of Israel is a reliable source. This seems to be a relevant and properly sourced fact. Marokwitz (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a somewhat related discussion here about two years ago about partisan sources. Even though it is beyond clear that Ynet and Times of Israel are heavily pro-Israel biased sources (I don't think anyone would argue with that) they are still reputable news sources and can't be dismissed without creating a serious ripple effect throughout this article and quite possibly many others. Whenever possible this sources should be replaced by others, but in the meantime they can't just be left out. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say something similar but with a different conclusion: remove the bit about the cakes, and other contentious material sourced to hyper-partisan publications, unless a source that isn't known for its anti-Palestinian bias picks them up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's more important here is that the fact that they gave out sweet cakes is completely irrelevant and a horrible violation of WP:UNDUE. Silverseren^C 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in the Independent. Is that also a "POV source"? It has been reported by multiple RS. Please explain why you think it's UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Support and second User:Roscelese. Guinsberg (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing aside, this must be included in the article. It is has been reported in multiple reliable media outlets. If the boilerplate language "reaction" of the foreign minister of Chile is included in the article, any attempt to remove this far more notable reaction by one of the actual parties to the conflict is nothing less then an horrific case of whitewashing pov-pushing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

UN report?

From the background section: "one UN report stated the blockade was illegal,[77] a UN legal inquiry found that the blockade was both legal and appropriate.[78]" Its Weasel wording in violation WP:NPOV. The official position of the UN main body is that the blockade is legal. --109.186.17.8 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. It solely states facts. One report said illegal. One inquiry said legal + appropriate. No reason to take out the first part. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is Weasel wording because it tries to give both events the same weight. when the first was a (report?) that is issued(by?) the food and agriculture organization, several years back. The second report was released by the UN main body, after an comprehensive inquiry by the secretary general that included all legal aspects and is the UN official position. --82.81.24.39 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is actually misrepresenting the source, as according to the newspaper the sea blockade is legal, but in the article that conclusion is streched to include the land blockade. Neither the newspaper article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& nor, as far as I can tell, the original Palmer report http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf has any conclusion about the legality of the land blockade. As to the weight that the anonymous editor wishes to give to the Palmer report, the report itself states that "The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability" and that "The findings of a Commission of Inquiry bind no one, unlike those of a court. So the legal issues at large in this matter have not been authoritatively determined by the two States involved and neither can they be by the Panel". The task that the panel was given from the Secretary-General was "(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and (b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future". It seems that the legal conclusions given by the report should not be given very much weight when it was not the task of the panel to consider the legality of the blockade, and the report itself says that it's conclusions are not authorative. PerDaniel (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now fixed this section so that it is in line with what the cited source says. PerDaniel (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is cute that you can copy/paste your "as far as I can tell". Though you seem to neglect the first "report", as far as I can tell, everything you said applies to it as well.(That is if the first report is an official FOA report at all). Regardless we are not here to do WP:OR, the later report is the latest(most comprehensiveness) issue by the main body of the UN, as such it should be regarded as the UN official position on the naval blockade.--Mor2 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it WP:OR to read the sources someone else has cited? The reason I added the AFAICT is that I didn't have the time to read the entire report thoroughly enough to be 100% certain. I didn't see any problems with the first report, but when I checked the source for the statements about the second (Palmer) report, it became clear that it was a vast difference between what the source said and what the article said (before I fixed it). The issues that i saw were that the article gave the impression that the Palmer report concluded that the entire blockade was legal while it only mentioned the naval blockade, and that it was described as a "legal inquiry" when it was no such thing, the panels instruction was to find out what had happened when 9 people were killed on the Mavi Marmara, and how to avoid similar incidents in the future. I understand that you like the Palmer reports opinion that the naval blackade is legal, but that is no reason to claim that it is the official UN position when both the mandate to the panel and the panels report clearly shows that it is not. PerDaniel (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When the reactions section is hived off, this might go in

(2)

The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test.' Ron Paul at Rachel Hirshfeld 'Rep. Paul: Gaza Violence Fueled by US Favoritism Toward Israel,' at Arutz Sheva, 27 November, 2012 Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(2) Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel Sharon said the aim of Operation Pillar of Defense was to ‘a Tarzan-like cry that lets the entire jungle know in no uncertain terms just who won, and just who was defeated’.Cited Adam Shatz, 'Why Israel Didn’t Win,' at London Review of Books, December 2012.

Now that the article is stacked with newspaper spin, and editors will walk away, these are the sort of statistics analysts will look at.

(A)UNITED NATIONS Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS WEEKLY REPORT 7 - 13 NOVEMBER 2012

• Palestinian casualties by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip: 7-13
• Killed this week: 8
• Killed in 2012: 78
• Killed in 2011: 108
• Injured this week: 52
• Injured in 2012: 343
• Injured in 2011: 479
• 2012 weekly average of injured: 8
• 2011 weekly average of injured: 9

• Israeli casualties by Palestinian fire from Gaza
• Injured this week: 9
• Killed in 2012: 1
• Injured in 2012: 27

At this statistics blog at The Economist

• Number of Israelis killed by fire from Gaza between January 1st 2012 and November 11th 2012 1
• Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire during the same period: 78

• Total number of Israelis killed by rocket, mortar or anti-tank fire from Gaza since 2006: 47 (Source: Wikipedia. This is disputed; another source says 26)

• Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire from April 1st 2006 to July 21st 2012: 2,879 (Source: United Nations)

• Per capita GDP of Israel in 2011, in dollars: 31,000

• Per Capita GDP of Gaza in 2011, in dollars: 1,483

In addition Norman Finkelstein, 'What Really Happened in Gaza,' at Counterpunch, November 29, 2012, argues that the decision to go to war was not related to threats or provocations from Gaza, that Israel had other objectives, and failed to achieve them. He's biased, but so are the NYTs and 95% of the sources used here.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Better still Adam Shatz, 'Why Israel Didn’t Win,' at London Review of Books, Vol. 34 No. 23, 6 December 2012

pages 3-5

missing word 'following'

in the first paragraph\:

The stated aims of the operation were to halt the [following] indiscriminate rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Al-Dalu massacre

There is currently a massive infusion of material going on the Al-Dalu case without any prior discussion. The editor involved has clearly identified his perspective on the case by referring to a "massacre" in an early edit. Tkuvho (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tel Aviv bus bombing

Just to let people know, I nominated 2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing for deletion as a WP:POVFORK of this article. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And ... as reflected, there, changed your mind (and !vote). Thanks for taking a second look.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

"Although Israel withdrew its civilians and military personnel in 2005, the United States, United Nations and Arab League consider Israel to be an occupying power in the territory."

I was asked (on my talk page) to explain why I inserted a better source needed to the above statement (from the background section). The reason is that the source cited is from 2009, and three years is a long time for things like this, so I thought it might be outdated. If anyone disagrees, they may remove the tag. Inkbug (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think that whether the source is outdated depends more on whether there have been any siginficant change in the Gaza situation than on the age of the source. PerDaniel (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the tag. PerDaniel (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)