Talk:2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Timeline

I can sum up the first paragraph to:

On November 14, 2012: Israel launches the operation. The offensive, began about 16:00(Israel time), with an airstrike killing Ahmad Jabari, the military commander of Hamas; he had been long on Israel's most wanted list for "decade-long terrorist activity" and the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit in 2006. The attack was part of 20 airstrikes against Hamas targets, including underground rocket launchers and an ammunition warehouse. Gaza's health minister said 10 were killed in the strikes. Gazan militants continued to fire rockets towards the Israeli population centers, while Israeli authorized a partial call-up of reservists in case they were needed for a large ground-based operation. On November 15, 2012:

However I suspect that most people will find issues with this summary and in the result will end up just as large as the original . So how about we skip the process and re instate it? --Mor2 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is a separate page for the timeline needed at all? The material should be reinstated, and the new page linked to this. Tkuvho (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Maan News

It is in the same class of reliability as Arutz Sheva and both should not be used. This is a publication that prints vile antisemitic slurs. Compare how the left wing Haaretz reported the incident regarding "IDF tanks fired toward a man suspected of attempting to place an explosive device" and how this was distorted by Maan who described an innocent 22-year-old Palestinian who witnesses said was a farmer. Ankh.Morpork 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I was hoping for an accurate translation of the sixth paragraph of this Maan article, perhaps you would be able to help? Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats an editorial, what does it have to do with this article? But no, I am not willing to help you. You want to compare how the BBC and JPost report material? You want to measure the level of distortion in JPost, or terrorism-info.org, or the Times of Israel? How does removing Palestinian sources do anything to accomplish the supposed goal of this place to representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources? Do Palestinian not represent a significant view? Or are only Israeli views significant? nableezy - 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you not notice that I agreed certain Israeli sources should not be used because of their slanted perspective. In the tank firing incident, do you not see how Maan omitted the small detail of the person shot setting off an explosive, and instead suggested he was a peaceful farmer? And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false. There are numerous sources that contradict their version of events. I am not against any significant point of views that is reliably reported, however this manifestly is not one of them. Ankh.Morpork 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you agreed that voice of the settlers shouldnt be used. You want a cookie for that? As far as the rest of that noise above, if there are sources that contradict Ma'an then add them too. I am unaware of a reliable source that contradicts that Palestinian fishermen have been rounded up and several killed by Israeli forces, which is what the source cited is used for. Did you notice that, or was looking for the translation of an op-ed a more important task? nableezy - 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to rebut all the proposterous claims that Maan makes for them not to be considered reliable. Maan reports that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards and a nation of agitators. Must I similarly only disbelieve this once a contradictory RS is produced? You demand that the Palestinian voice is included, yet dismiss out of hand that the voice of the settlers should be similarly treated. Maybe your inconsistent approach would have been more obvious to you if you had not been preoccupied following my edits. I repeat that who the mouth belongs to makes no difference but the voice must be of a reliable tone. Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt true. Ma'an doesnt report that, an op-ed by Sawsan Nageeb Abdel Halim says that. See if you cant figure out what the difference is. nableezy - 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork: Were you trying to make a joke when you wrote "And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false.", or do you really think that Israeli sources writes "THE TRUTH", anyone who has a different version are liars? PerDaniel (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you should probably read your supposed smoking gun again. It says An Israeli military spokeswoman said forces fired on "a suspect apparently placing an explosive device." Unlike Haaretz however, Ma'an doesnt take the Israeli military's favored narrative as though it were gospel truth. nableezy - 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maan News is not a reliable source of information. It appears from the comments by User:Nableezy and User:PerDaniel that they are interested not in reliable sources but rather in sources supporting the "right" side in their view. Is there a wiki venue where the unreliability of a news outlet can be established? What the RS status of this? I have seen instances in the past where users were blocked for overt antisemitism; it does not seem unreasonable to disqualify certain media outlets for procedures inconsistent with the operation of a free encyclopedia. Tkuvho (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Maan meets all the criteria set in WP:RS. There have been several assertions that it is not, backed on nothing but a personal opinion. Maan is regularly cited in such sources as the BBC,^[1][2] the Guardian,^[3][4][5] al-Jazeera,^[6][7] and the New York Times.^[8][9][10] nableezy - 20:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tkuvho: Please stop your personal attacks. PerDaniel (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@User:PerDaniel:it is your views I find objectionable, not your person (and I do wish you a speedy recovery from your Krohn condition; perhaps a break from wiki activity might help). Specifically, your tolerance for ma'an excesses is surprising. We are talking about a news service that finds it fit to publish a piece describing a neighboring nation as "engaging in foul play", "weaving conspiracies", "their deceipt", "their violence", "coward", "tens of cowards", "excessive violence". Furthermore, the piece alleged that "a bullet shot their way will trigger them to shoot back with air strikes, missiles, and tanks", in an apparent allusion to last month's conflict. Now one cannot reliably describe the firing of hundreds of missiles as "a bullet shot their way". Ma'an does not appear to be a WP:RS, inspite of your surprising position on this. Tkuvho (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Tkuvho: You wrote that "It appears from the comments by User:Nableezy and User:PerDaniel that they are interested not in reliable sources but rather in sources supporting the "right" side in their view". That was a personal attack. Your claims are also not supported by the facts, as I have not been trying to exclude sources from the side of the conflict that I disagree with. It is User:AnkhMorpork who is trying to do that, and appearantly you have decided to help him. I have not supported the statements that you claim that Ma'an News have come with, I have just questioned whether the translation is correct. User:Nableezy claimed that the offending phrases were from an Op-ed named Sawsan Nageeb Abdel Halim. If this is true the statements there are not necessarily supported by the news agency, and should have no impact on whether the news agency is a reliable source or not. If you can link to untranslated news reports or editorials from Ma'an News in a language that I can read (english, norwegian, swedish or danish) which contains these or other similar phrases, I will consider supporting your view that Ma'an News is not a reliable source, despite your continuos breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. PerDaniel (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

mosque hit

Why was On 8 November, residents of the town of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip said an Israeli tank wounded four children and damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower removed? And why did the edit summary make no mention of the fact that it was removed by a user who has complained of unexplained sourced content removals and that others should add additional content or make changes by introducing constructive edits + summaries? nableezy - 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you really looking for an answer you can always ask the "user" directly ;) The diff in question[11] doesn't remove the content, it added to it. The most important info is the effect of the Israeli strike. The 4 wounded children are there, to which I add another wounded from that attack, as well the event of the previous day(same source). Removing that it was said by "residents of the town of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip"(unnecessary), that it is an "Israeli tank"(because those are two incidents, the other strike is air strike, so both were condensed into strike) and the "damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower" amount of detail that we avoid for all the entries(like 'pregnant' woman, etc) which is only used for over sensualization.--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What was hit isnt sensualization, sorry. Its not sensualization when we write an apartment building in Kiryat Malachi, and it isnt when we write damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower. Explain to me the difference please. nableezy - 05:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem with reinstating this bit.--Mor2 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for Nableezy

Do you think an RS would publish an article saying it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires? Ankh.Morpork 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep opening sections to ask irrelevant questions? And do you know what you are linking to? nableezy - 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

To the point, I dont believe I have ever said that Sawsan Nageeb Abdel Halim is a reliable source or that her op-ed should be cited. Please try to get back to the point of this page, that being to discuss the content of the article, not what some random op-ed said. nableezy - 21:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that your translation AnkhMorpork? As you are clearly unable to read and understand a simple english text, I seriously doubt your skills as an arabic(?)-english translator.PerDaniel (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reread the question. "Do you think an RS would publish an article saying..." I want your view on the newspaper itself. Ankh.Morpork 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reread the answer, that is an irrelevant question. Or, as irrelevant as the question on whether or not a source who continues to publish material by the author of a "work" derided as racist is a reliable source for news. nableezy - 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant; you inserted this "news organisation" into the article that happens to publish articles about those nasty Jews. I will ask you for the third time: Do you consider this newspaper a reliable source for this article? Ankh.Morpork 22:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the newspaper is reliable, what kind of question is that? Do you think the source you used is usable? Really? Thats what you come up with? And again, try to distinguish between one persons op-ed and a news organizations articles on, oh I dont know, the news. nableezy - 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any paper which would print that is hardly reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Says you. Not WP:RS. Is there any evidence, any at all, that the material that they actually report is inaccurate? nableezy - 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you would reconsider after you saw its disgusting content. Ankh.Morpork 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks? nableezy - 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@ User:AnkhMorpork. Are you sure you have posted the right URL? Your translation bears little resemblance to what the article says although there are similarities in the 6th paragraph if you severely edit it out of context. The op-ed Israel shiver! by Abdul Halim is no more "disgusting" than some FOX op-eds about Arabs. If a newspapers reliability relies on op-eds then we wouldn't be able to use any newspapers. Wayne (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit by User:WLRoss is an unfortunate attempt to change the subject. Our topic here is not Fox News, which can be discussed elsewhere. I am unable to read arabic but does the 6th paragraph refer to jews as being worse than vampires? It does seem as though publishing this sort of material would put in question the reliability of a news service. Tkuvho (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No it does not, and no it would not. At least no more than Yedioth Ahronoth publishing an editorial that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey. It also doesnt call them slaves, thats a reference to Muslims (عباده المؤمنين, believing slaves), and that, besides the author's name, is the only place I see a form of the word for slave (عبد) in the article. What it says is إن الله تعالى أمر عباده المؤمنين بمعاقبة أعدائهم مثلما عوقبوا به , وبمثل ما اعتدي عليهم which means

God Almighty commands his believing slaves to punish their enemies as they have punished you, and how/with they assaulted you

Or at least thats what I come up with, youre free to ask somebody else to translate it. But, again, that is a red-herring, completely unrelated to the question of whether Maan's news reports are reliable. nableezy - 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tkuvho: I hope you aren't basing your views on some free online "translation"-service. I have tried saving time by using some of those to translate between languages that I know, but the results are usually so bad that I spend as much time fixing the result as I would use translating the text by my self. PerDaniel (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This attempt by User:PerDaniel to change the subject is similarly regrettable: we are not discussing Yediot ahronot (which I don't read). Obviously we need an accurate translation of the ma'an pieces. Clearly the passage in question is longer than the sentence translated by User:PerDaniel. Tkuvho (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I trying to change the subject? I was merely stating the well known fact that the free online translation services are not likely to give an accurate translation. What is "Yediot ahronot", and why do you claim that I am trying to change the discussion to that? Are you claiming that I have translated part of the text in question? PerDaniel (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, the comment about the newspaper Yediot ahronot was not by you but by User:Nableezy. I misidentified the author of the comment. As far as the offending passage is concerned, I reproduced some relevant material in the section Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Maan_News above. If it is your view that this is journalism as usual, I will have to find such views foul. Tkuvho (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. Of course you want to restrict this to a Palestinian outlet, because if somebody were to take a consistent position on an op-ed making a news piece unreliable they would need to remove most of the Israeli sources in this article as well. And no, we dont need a translation of the piece, because this is a complete red-herring. Can you quote from me anything, anything at all, from WP:RS that says that what an outlet publishes as the opinion of a single person has any impact at all on the reliability of what that outlet reports as news? Of course you cant, because it is an asinine argument to make. nableezy - 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material on Palestinian fisherman being killed

Ill be adding several more sources to render moot that rather ansurd objection in Darkness Shine's edit summary. This doesnt even need a source, it is a well known fact, a fact being removed because it makes the Greatest Country in the Whole Universe look less than perfect. nableezy - 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? Absurd? Let me know were in that source it says the IDF are pinching boats. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Common knowledge, not exactly a freak occurence. For example this or this or this or this or this or this should suffice. nableezy - 22:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not respond to my question, how strange. First source printed 12.03.05 when did POD begin? Second source also 2005, same question applies. Third source, 2009. last one 2005. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize what section you removed that material from? You think you are proving your point by showing that this goes back many years and is not a surprising turn of events? nableezy - 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that unless it is about POD then it has no place in this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You really are out of your depth here. And by the way, why did you remove what was in the cited source? That Israel killed a fisherman? Is there a reason for that removal? Or are you just here as backup? nableezy - 23:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am on dry land, so nope not out of my depth. It may serve you well to stop right now with insinuations as I will deem it a personal attack, M'kay. What happened five years ago has nothing to do with this article, so no it does not belong here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

lol. If you feel that way, you can start removing the sentence on Hamas being designated as a terrorist organization, cited to several articles from 2005, 2003, 2010, ... nableezy - 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And if you want to actually learn something, you could read this or this or this or this or this. Those recent enough for ya? nableezy - 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with operation pillar of defense? Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they are directly involved in POD. First source, after the ceasefire. And is about a guy who sailed into restricted waters. Second source, the same it is after the cease fire. Third source, 2005 (do you not look at dates?) The last two sources are also from after the ceasefire, in fact I think other than the 2005 one they are all the same story from AFP. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that the post ceasefire section isn't a continually growing section to be updated as more events occur wholly unrelated to the ceasefire. You need a source that links them to this operation. Ankh.Morpork 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The section this material was removed from was Pre-operation events. The paragraph this was removed from was about Palestinian grievances (silly of them to think that counts, but dems the breaks). The sentence immediately following the removed material Fishery provides Gaza with a large share of its food production, and Israel has imposed limits on Gazan fishermen's work. The source for that sentence is a dead link, but is in fact this AFP article about, you guessed it, the very same fisherman that the Ma'an source was about. There is no reason why the fisherman being killed should be removed from this article. Ill restore that bit. As far as sinking boats, if you all want to pretend that including background material in a background section is verboten I can play along. Ill just site this Haaretz piece on the limits that Israel places on Gazan fisherman, along with a sentence about that specific killing. nableezy - 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with this at all, shit like that happens all the time, where in the sources does it say it is tied into this operation? A lot of that coatrack crap need to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What shit happens all the time? And how is it connected? Are you serious? Do you know anything about this issue? Do you know one of the grievances of the Palestinian population and government of Gaza was the restrictions placed on Palestinian fisherman? Do you know that he ceasefire included the easing of these restrictions? This is what I was talking about with depth. nableezy - 05:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrorists lob hundreds of rockets at Israel. That is not a Pre-operation event it is the usual. Israel retaliates, also business as usual. Half the crap in that section has no place there at all. Given none of the sources mention this operation, it is pure coatrack. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that fine analysis. Inspiring, really. No sarcasm, none at all. Does this mention this conflict? Does this? Does this? What about this? Why is that your edits show that you only wish to remove material on Palestinian casualties? Why havent you removed anything else that meets your rather bizarre claim that a section dealing with the immediate run-up shouldnt include sources about the immediate run-up? nableezy - 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Business as usual, zionist editors distorting reality, stating that Palestinians fighting a forgiegn occupation are terrorists, Israeli attacks, even as an invading force, are retalitory or defensive, zionist editors slowly chipping away at the neutrality of the article, such as removing the fact Hamas was elected for the purpose of deletimizing Palestine, zionist editors removing the fact that Gazan rocket attacks decrease due to a peace treaty and increased AFTER Israel being bombing Gaza again - replacing this with a false narrative that Israel started bombing Palestinians because the Palestinians were fighting back first. Editors placing claims in the first paragraph that Hamas' goal is to kill civilians, making well documented facts into "alleged" facts. I won't stand for it, and I know I have much support from the non-zionists, so I have reverted some of these more blatantly bias and despicable edits. Sepsis II (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool, now I'm and Irish Zionist that'll look good on my passport. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@nableezy, It would have been more helpful if you had provided a diff, so we would know what 'Darkness Shine's objection was or what you consider a fact that doesn't need a source. I really hope it is not just uncensored martial removal, because it would require only a WP:RS for this pre operation event, instead of sliding into a more personal tone.--Mor2 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What I think doesnt need a source? That Israel has shot at and sunk Palestinian fishing boats. That can be sourced to hundreds of sources documenting these events. I dont know what your last sentence means. nableezy - 17:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Was the Zionist entity shooting of the fisher involved in the war itself or was killed while the operation going? --209.188.54.46 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Israeli civilians

The line Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israeli civilians over a 24-hour period is cited to this JPost article. Would Inkburg, who reverted my change on the grounds that source mentions civilian targets, please quote what in the source mentions civilian targets? The line The stated aims of the operation are to halt the indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian targets originating from the Gaza Strip has other problems, including the sources. Could somebody please explain to me how somebody can indiscriminately fire anything at any specific target? nableezy - 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Indiscriminate fire includes all manner of targets including civilian ones, so I would agree that also writing "civilians" is unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 22:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article mentions "a barrage fired to coincide with the morning commute to work" – that seems to me to be an intent to harm civilians. In addition, the other text you removed in your edit, can be found almost word for word in the source. Inkbug (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If a source states that the operation's objective was to halt rocket fire targeting civilians, then include it. Where in the source does it state this? Ankh.Morpork 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence 'Pillay also condemned "the continuing indiscriminate attacks and targeting of civilians in Israel by militants from Gaza"'. I now see that it is Pillay who said that (and not necessarily IDF opinion). I see that the words are currently not in the article, and I'm not going to press the issue (unless I find better sources). Inkbug (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is sourcing the claim that Hamas and other terror groups target specifically civilian targets, then certainly the latest HRW report is an excellent source. Having said this, User:AnkhMorpork's point may be well-taken, namely that "indiscriminate" already implies civilian targets so that there may not be any need to elaborate. Tkuvho (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the word "indiscriminate" is removed from the lead, and the intended civilian targets of the rocket fire as the HRW report makes clear is mentioned instead. Having both is unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 14:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Tkuvho (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That is OK with me too. Inkbug (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not okay with me, because it isnt true. AM, do you seriously think if Palestinian rockets were targeting Israeli military positions that Israel would say "oh well thats fine by us"? nableezy - 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nableezy is attempting to change the subject to a hypothetical discussion of what IDF would or would not say. However, the topic here is the coverage of Israeli civilians and Hamas bombing thereof, a practice that was comdemned by HRW. User:Nableezy has removed the HRW condemnation of Hamas bombing of civilians from the lede, inspite of what seems to be largely a consensus in this space. I urge User:Nableezy to revert this deletion which is not productive and a violation of WP:POV. Tkuvho (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch condemned much more than Hamas's rocket attacks. They also condemned Israeli attacks on the media, and they also condemned the Israeli attack that killed the al-Dalu family. Is there a reason only one of those condemnations should be in the lead? nableezy - 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, I'm going to restore in the lede, while preserving allegation against both sides, HRW on Palestinian militants' stated aim, to balance it with Israel's, per NPOV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn't selectively present HRW criticisms, both of hundreds of Hamas (and other terror groups) attacks on civilians FROM civilian areas, and the two or three Israeli attacks HRW find objectionable. Tkuvho (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

lol, you should probably check HRW's website before saying things like that. nableezy - 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy with AgadaUrbanit's proposal. Springnuts (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not, there isnt any commentary in the lead on Israeli quotes about stated aims such as an Israeli government minister saying The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Why should that aim not be included but a quote by Hamas should? If one is added I'll add the other. nableezy - 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that Springnuts (per WP:BRD, Most Interested Person) lifted his objection to citing Palestinian groups stated aim. It appears there is a consensus that either we mention that Palestinian rocket fire was "indiscriminate" or cite HRW. Having both is unnecessary. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad AgadaUrbanit is happy, but I am cetainly not the Most Interested Person and do not appreciate having words put in my mouth. I have not expressed an "objection to citing Palestinian groups stated aim". FWIW it is not clear to me that "there is a consensus that either we mention that Palestinian rocket fire was "indiscriminate" or cite HRW. Having both is unnecessary." Springnuts (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned MIP strictly in WP:BRD context , sorry if it appeared as if I've put words in your mouth. What do you suggest, Springnuts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Coverage

The entire "media coverage" section is clearly written from anti-Israel POV. The only ones that believe that the 'predominant media narrative' is that Hamas started the war, are the same extreme critics of Israel that frequently claim that the media is controlled by Pro-Israel groups and see its influence everywhere. Every other person would see that the entire Muslim/Arab/Left-wing media blames Israel, and even the right-wing media has Israel beginning the war with the killing of Ahmed Jabari. Furthermore, the additional paragraphs for the other Israel bashers are just as naive. They consistently claim that there is some kind of systematic pro-Israel bias in the media that in reality only exists in these people's minds. For example, I can't find the media using terms such as "Hamas schools" to defend Israeli attacks as Sharine Tadros claims (which, revealing even more of her bias she claims are deliberately targetted), nor is there some kind of media-wide standard describing Israeli's strikes are surgical.

I believe that this entire section should be deleted (or better yet re-written) as it is almost entirely based on the old and tired falsehood of a few rare and brave souls speaking out against the Israel/Jew controlled media. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whose POV this is, but it is a POV section. While titled 'Media coverage', all of its three section deal with criticism of 'predominant media narrative/approach/etc without one word on what it actually is.--Mor2 (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed most of it because of the obvious bias, and the cynical conspiracies the author was promoting. Wikieditorpro (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Wikieditorpro. If you bother to read the article you will see that what Tadros is claiming is that the media often do not differentiate between a member of Hamas and a Palestinian fighter (a POV problem that afflicts several WP editors who insist on saying Hamas even when a RS does say Palestinian) and accepts attacking civilian targets by Israel as justified on the basis that it is targetting a Hamas member. If they know a Hamas member is there why do they need to kill 10 civilians to get him, why not wait for him to leave to reduce collatoral damage. Wayne (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your connection is to the author of that section, or if you just subscribe to the same school of thought that the media is controlled by Jewish/Pro-Israel groups. Uncritically re-posting the ramblings of authors patting themselves on the back for being brave warriors standing up against systemic media bias that doesn't exist outside of their own minds, is neither NPOV nor a reflection of reality. Wikieditorpro (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Wayne suffers from a syndrome that afflicts many a Hamas supporter, namely thinking that Hamas and Palestinians are one and the same thing. It is profoundly demeaning to the population of Gaza to be identified with a terror group. News media that are careful about their language routinely report attacks perpetrated by Hamas and other armed groups, and avoid implicating "palestinians". Note that when the ceasefire agreement was signed last month, the other terror groups similarly ceased firing rockets, which indicates clearly who is in charge in Gaza, namely Hamas, having seized power there illegally a number of years ago, whereas the head of the PA is formally supposed to be in charge there. Tkuvho (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho, the offensive assumptions you make about Wayne are not appropriate for this talk page discussion. I could quite happily jump to my own conclusions about you based on the personal opinions you expressed about the topic in your previous post, which I am sure you would not like. However I will refrain as your own personal opinions on the topic or assumptions about other editors are not relevant. Please stick to discussing source evidence and Wikipedia policy, to wit, a significant viewpoint published in RS about media coverage of the offensive was recently deleted from the article (in violation of WP:NPOV) with the editor offering no evidence/policy justification for the deletion of this sourced material. Will the editor please give a justification for the deletion or restore the content? Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have cited my justifications above. Wikieditorpro (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Shit guys, lets all calm down here, people seem to be getting a tad personal. Also, what is the best way to roll a fag after two bottles of wine? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As previously requested, could you please either give a policy/evidence based justification for your deletion of sourced content or restore the content? Dlv999 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not request that previously. Thought I was the one having a drink I removed it because it is shite. And because I agree with the assessment by Tkuvho that it is in fact crap, though he did put it in slightly more politic language. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please indicate to me the comment made by Tkuvho that you believe is relevant to your deletion of this sourced content. Dlv999 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tadros states that Hamas is not Gaza. This is a valid point. It follows that Hamas rocket attacks should not be described as "Palestinian attacks", for it is profoundly demeaning to the Gaza population to be identified with a group that is viewed as a terror group by many countries allowing free access to this free encyclopedia. Granted many Islamist dictatorships prefer to blur such a distinction. However, it stands to reason that a free encyclopedia should seek to represent reasoned views not dictated by ideological considerations. However, Tadros does not pursue this direction at all, and instead elaborates complaints about media coverage which are of marginal significance for the main topic of this page. Therefore dwelling on her comments amounts to giving WP:UNDUE weight to them. Tkuvho (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that Hamas is not Palestine, they are palestinian and they are only one of the armed groups that have launched rockets at Israel. According to HRW: "The Palestinian armed groups that are known to have launched rockets at Israel – Hamas' Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Islamic Jihad's Saraya al-Quds Brigades, and the Popular Resistance Committee's Nasser Salahaddin Brigades". If you don't want to call the rocket attacks from Gaza "Palestinian attacks", you would have to name the particular armed group responsible for each attack. It is much easier to call them "Palestinian attacks". Using that phrase does not imply that all palestinians support the attacks, just as calling IDFs attacks "israeli attacks" does not imply that all israeli citizens support IDFs attacks. Calling all attacks from Gaza "Hamas attacks" is not an option as we have reliable sources that say that some of the attacks were made by other groups than the armed wing of Hamas. PerDaniel (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Tadros is a perfectly fine source. This article covers the entire topic, not just the battle. Reliable sources discussing the coverage of the topic belongs on this page, and NPOV demands that it be included. A personal opinion that it is shite is worth less than price of admission to Wikipedia. That people dont like what the source says is not a valid reason, and that is in fact the reason given in the opening of this section. I am restoring Tadros, and unless somebody can justify the removal by quoting policy, not some personal opinion, it should not be removed. nableezy - 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I hit an edit-conflict as somebody else restored it, but for the record I was going to cut it down to:

Sharine Tadros, an Al Jazeera correspondent to the Middle East who covers the conflict from Gaza, criticized several aspects of the media approach to the conflict. Tadros criticized what she said was an uncritical and repetitive use by journalists of Israel's justifications for targeting homes and other civilian structures. Tadros further criticized the use of terms such as "Hamas school" as, according to her, Hamas is used as an adjective by Israel as justification for targeting civilian infrastructure.</blockquoute>nableezy - 16:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And since it was re-reverted I have restored it but with the cut-down version in the preceding comment. nableezy - 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing the paragraph sourced to Tadros. The content is highly relevant to the media coverage, kinda funny really as this same bias has been introduced into this article by some accounts. The labeling of government buildings as Hamas facilities is incorrect. As I analogized earlier, US government buildings are not Democractic Party buildings, they may control the buildings, but if the Democractic Party or Hamas was to lose a future election the buildings would no longer be their's by any means. Sepsis II (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamas was not put into its current position of power by elections. There is no non-violent circumstance by which power could be transferred to, for example, Fatah, unless Hamas willingly relinquished it independently of any democratic process. That said, Tadros' claim is relevant and shouldn't have been removed, so long as it's countered by a statement that Hamas uses this infrastructure to store weapons and conduct military operations. -- Avi 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

List of problems

I made a list of problems with the article last month and got a high level of support for my points then. Unfortunately many less interested editors and I have left the article, and many of the problems are back again with accounts pushing the article back into the blatantly pro-Israeli bias that so many editors complained of earlier. Again I will make a list of necessary changes I shall soon make.

1) From the lead, "Palestinian militants blamed Israel for the upsurge in violence, accusing the IDF of attacks on Gazan civilians in the days leading up to the operation " emphasis added, these attacks are not something the IDF is accused of, it is something very well documented, these events are mentioned in this article, paragraph 3 under "Pre-operation events". Accounts have edited the article many times to changed the wordsing from "pointing to" to "accusing", this is inappropriate and the changes by these accounts is never explained.

2) From the lead, "including rocket launchpads, weapon depots, Hamas facilities and apartment blocks." This summarization of bombed locales by Israel is incorrect in that it calls Palestinian government buildings Hamas facilities. This would be like calling the White House a Democratic Party facility, which of course is incorrect, like Hamas they were elected and control the buildings, but they are not the property of the Democractic Party. The correct wording would be the very simple "government buildings".

3) I tried to replace this "Gaza officials said 133 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict of which 79 were militants, 53 civilians and 1 was a policeman. and estimated that 840 Palestinians were wounded." with the previous, better sources, statement on casualities, but this version, whose only source which has no relation to the contents on the sentence and has a major grammatical error has been re-added several times without any explanation. If this garbage was to ever be re-added again the account which does so should be treated like a vandal.

4) An account has also been used to continuously try to remove the fact that Hamas was elected into government, while leaving mention of the armed conflict it has with Fatah, giving the false illusion that Hamas took power by force.

5) The removal of the sourced points, that Palestinian rocket fire reduced dramatically from a cease fire and only increased again in response to Israeli attacks, and the replacement with distorted figures and unsourced "reasoning" behind the trends, is inapproriate and I think it is very fair to say a clear attempt at propagandizing the article.

The next two points are taken word for word from my post here on November 23rd, both received more support than criticism, the changes were made to the article, but over the month, like the rest of the article has been slowly degraded into a propaganda piece.

6) "Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad further intensified their rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns, in an offensive code named..." this sentence, also in the lead, makes it seem as though these forces were aiming only at cities and towns when they were aiming at, and hiting, many different targets including military targets in Israel. It would be best to replace "attacks on Israeli cities and towns" with "attacks on Israel".

7) When counting Israeli casualties the article, in the lead of course for maximum effect it states, "and thirty more had been treated for acute stress reaction." I think this is unnecessary and is biased as we don't, and never will be, stating the number of Palestinians who suffered psychological trauma from the hostilities.

There are many more problems, I'm just afraid that the decent editors have left and all I am talking to now is a bunch of accounts that made this article the shameful propaganda that it is. Sepsis II (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis, note that the way to avoid "pushing" is communication. Note that Editors don't posses telepathic abilities and thus explaining the reason for a change in the edit summary or pointin to a previous discussion, makes editors more receptive. Few quick notes on points:

3) I don't know with what "previous, better sources, statement on casualities" you tried to replace it with. But I think that the info is outdated and can be updated. Note that the recent revert/your block had nothing todo with content.

5) First, I doubt that others know what that point is. Second you got it backwards, that point is a recent addition that removed several sources. The issue was an unexplained cumulative revert and if you recall I had no objection with its addition. Also if you think that the other sources are distorted, please explain which and why, or tag them, but when you remove a whole section with a summary 'blunt propagandizing' its not constructive.

4) Note "that account" or rather this account, has added both variants, so try to avoid conspiracy theories. Also hamas has actually took power by force, causing the split between Fatah and Hamas, which is why we have Hamas Government in Gaza linked in the infobox, but your power play has nothing todo with change. I think that my variant[12] is much more informational, it explains why the article keep referring to Hamas and gaza. Instead of providing only Hamas reason for the coup or imply something with "Islamic party", it links to the article that deals with those issues. --Mor2 (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple notes also:

1) Whether or not the accusations are true, they are still accusations. Note that the edits changing "accused" to "pointed to" introduced grammar errors.

2) Your comparison is mistaken – Hamas is an armed force, and therefore it is parallel to the United States Army, not to the Democratic Party.

3) Please don't call things garbage. If you have RS for your version, please reinsert it.

6) Do you have any RS for such claims? I assume you agree that Hamas has fired rockets at "Israeli cities and towns", and intended to hit civilians?

7) I agree.

Please tell us about your other problems with the article, so we can reach consensus (if that is possible). Inkbug (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Mor2: Hamas did not take power by force. Hamas was the legally elected government and "retained" power by force by pre-empting a coup by Fatah. A significant destinction.

@ User:Inkbug:

Quote: "Hamas is an armed force, and therefore it is parallel to the United States Army, not to the Democratic Party." Hamas IS NOT an armed force, it is a political party. The Brigades is the armed force and has no involvement in government. The analogy to the Democratic Party is correct.

Quote: "Hamas has fired rockets at "Israeli cities and towns", and intended to hit civilians." Hamas did not fire any rockets until after the start of Operation Pillar of Defense. According to Gershon Baskin, all Hamas fired rockets were directed to open areas to avoid civilian casualties. The Brigades fire rockets indiscriminately, they can not target anything specific because the rockets are not accurate enough, they target areas. Wayne (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@Wayne "The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the military wing of the Palestinian Islamist political organisation Hamas." (from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades article). The brigades are the military wing of Hamas, and therefore differentiating between the actions of one and the other is a distortion of the truth. Inkbug (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wayne, You confuse 2006 election, with Hamas armed coup in 2007, pre-empting or not, only the end result count.(see Israel six days war). Regardless, if you note my formulation it doesn't mention force or power(no assigning of blame) only that it was armed conflict(which it was) and the end result(which lends directly to the next sentence and the article topic. --Mor2 (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Inkbug: If one is to believe the reports on the lack of accuracy of the rockets available to Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza, it is difficult to know what the rockets were aimed at, and whether they attempted to hit civilians or not. One can however assume that they were aiming at Israel, although some of the rockets have hit Gaza itself according to reports. PerDaniel (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, but those are none precision unguided weapons(here is a nice technical summary I found a month ago when I was reading on the situation) Unlike Israeli weapons that take out buildingsor certain floors/rooms within them. Those are simple tubes that you aim at general direction and "play" at 'scorched earth'(or worms if you like) with a target two dozen miles away. To claim that you aimed at a specific target, is like claiming you aimed at the toilet, while standing 20 floors above pissing into the wind. If you can't hit your target, find a bigger target. Which the reason why they target dense population centers, which are miles wide targets, with greatly increased chance to cause damage(plus psychological one). Which is why those acts were condemned by almost everyone.--Mor2 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite easy to know what the rockets were aimed at. See for example this image. Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The image is not a reliable source so has no bearing on article content. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether they tweet their targets before or after the rockets have hit. According to that picture at least one was aimed at a military installation. PerDaniel (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comparison between Hamas and the US Democratic party is fallacious because Hamas was not elected to its current position: they killed political dissidents to get there. They violently took over after the Hamas-Fatah conflict in Gaza, of which Sepsis was clearly aware because he mentioned it. -- Avi 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamas War Crimes

Section III (Issues of concern in relation to international humanitarian law and human rights law), Sub section B-2 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A.HRC.22.35.Add.1_AV.pdf

Paragraph 39 details that the 11-month old infant killed in Al-Zaiytun (Omar Masharawi) was probably killed by an errant Palestinian missile:

"By 19 November, according to IDF sources, at least 99 rockets fired between 14 and 19 November from within the Gaza Strip had landed in Gaza.68 On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel."141.0.34.138 (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This has now also been reported in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/palestinian-rocket-killed-baby-gaza 141.0.34.138 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gershon Baskin's claims

There are major problems with the part of Gershon Baskin's claims. Firstly, the article uncritically echos his claims that he negotiated the release of Ehud Shalit. There are no good sources for this except for his own self-promotional claims. Secondly, it states as a matter of fact that Jabari was expected to view the long-term peace deal positively. These claims have not been verified by either side and should therefore be stated as his opinion as per WP:RSOPINION.

Furthermore, when you consider that Hamas's charter calls for the elimination of Israel and all Jews, explicitly negates peace deals, and its religious beliefs preclude the existence of Israel; his claims should be treated as WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Not only are his claims clearly motivated by his own personal interests and , but they are out of character for Hamas, and contradict their core beliefs and statements going back to their founding.

I'm firmly of the opinion that until there is evidence of his claims, they should be regarded as as both WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SELFSOURCE too.

Benjamin Kerstein points out more reasons why this is implausible: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jabari-a-peacemaker-baskins-tall-tales-and-media-gullibility/ Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Baskin's involvement in Shalit's release is reported as fact by RS [13] so they should be reported as fact by the article unless we have any equivalent standard RS news reports that contradict the claim. Your own personal opinions and speculations about the nature of Hamas are not relevant to the article. Your claim of self source is not correct because Baskin's views on this topic have been widely reported by international news media making his viewpoint a significant viewpoint that has been published in RS that should be included in the article. Your only supporting evidence for your argument is a single opinion blog that is far from meeting Wikipedia standards for verification of facts. Dlv999 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged peace papers, the blog points out that he has not produced any evidence for his claims viz. the peace agreement. All the media outlets reporting his claims have reported them as his claims i.e. WP:SELFSOURCE. Neither side has verified them. A hundred news sites repeating the claims of one person claiming to have seen a UFO, don't make the sighting prove that UFOs exist as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Regarding Hamas, I am stating the prevailing opinion accepted as fact which Baskin is contradicting. Please state specifically state which claim you disagree with and I will provide evidence for it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a good idea to use a personal blog which calls Baskin "a bulbous, bearded demagogue who runs an Israeli-Palestinian NGO and regularly pops up in the media to engage in pompous apologetics on behalf of the latest Palestinian idiocy or atrocity" as a source for anything. PerDaniel (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As already pointed out an opinion blog is not considered by Wikipedia as reliable for verification of facts. An opinion blog cannot trump a factual news report by a news media organization like the one I cited in my previous post. Please read the WP:SELFSOURCE guideline that you have cited, it is discussing Self-published sources. If Baskin had published his own opinion on his own website you would have a point. However, Baskin's opinion has been published and cited by numerous international news media on the topic, which is very good evidence that his viewpoint is a significant published opinion and should be included per WP:NPOV. As far as I am concerned any unsourced claims you make either about this topic or Hamas are just your own opinion and therefore not relevant to the article or talk page discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that numerous news sources cite his own opinions only mean that it is true that he makes those claims. It says nothing about the veracity of the claims which are certainly WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require evidence. Perdaniel, the op-ed piece does not contradict the news stories at all. It too acknowledges that he made those claims (which is all that they do). Being that he hasn't shown any evidence, nor has any side verified his claims, they are important to his own personal being (and his own Wikipedia page, if it exists) but not relevant to the Wikipedia article.

Again Dlv999, if you disagree with the accepted wisdom regarding Hamas see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas , state specifically what I said about Hamas that you disagree with and what your sources are. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That Baskin was involved in negotiations with Hamas to release Shalit is reported as fact by RS. [14] [15]No RS has been produced disputing this, therefore it should be reported as fact in the article. Baskin's statement about the truce agreement and his opinion on the likelihood of Hamas accepting the agreement are reported and attributed as the statements/opinion of Baskin by numerous international news media,[16] [17] [18] [19] meaning his opinion is a significant viewpoint published in RS on the topic. It should thus be included with attribution as a significant viewpoint per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you've ignored the point about the truce claims. His claims are his opinion alone and no matter how much coverage he gets, they still remain his claims alone and are therefore both WP:SELFSOURCE. If hundredds of news papers cite one individual claiming to have seen a UFO, that doesn't give those claims credence and prove that UFOs exist. Baskin's claims are even more unlikely as they counteract everything known about Hamas and are therefore WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is questionnable whether they should be mentioned at all, but if they are, they should be attributed solely to him. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

[20] is clearly a WP:SECONDARY. The blog that you linked to in an effort to disprove the claims is however WP:SELFSOURCE, and should not be used. Did you read the notice at the bottom of the blog? It says: "The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post." Comparing the claim that a man negotiated with Hamas with the claim that there exists extraterrestials on earth is just ridiculous. PerDaniel (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to give credence to Baskin's claims over Gerstein. You have also completely ignored the exceptionalism of his claims which make them far less like than Gerstein whose common sense claims are in accordance with the evidence.Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason is simple: Wikipedia policy and source evidence. Baskin's involvement in the Shalit negotiations are reported as fact by multiple RS. Baskin's views on the issue of the Jabarri assassination and the existence of a possible peace deal are cited by numerous international news media, both in news reporting of the events and international media publishing Baskin's opinion. You have found one blog post by an unknown commentator, on the ToI site, but which ToI categorically disavow any responsibility for. WP:NPOV states that viewpoints should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Your edit, which gives equal weight to a lone blog post Vs multiple news reports and opinion pieces in various international media is a clear violation of our core policy. Dlv999 (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gerstein's claims are his own, just as Baskin's are. There is no additional source for either of them. If 2 or 2000 sources quote the same person as saying that Michael Jackson molested them, that doesn't make them more correct. They are still WP:SELFSOURCE and based on Hamas's history definitely fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL too. The face that his claims haven't been verified is critical for the NPOV of the article. Additionally, if you believe that Gersteins opinion should not be included, then do you agree that Reuven Pedatzur and Sharine Todros's opinions should also be deleted? And if not, please explain why not.Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Baskin is the sole source for his claims. If his claims are noteworthy enough to be included in the article any counterclaim published in a RS must be included as well, per WP:NPOV--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:SECONDARY and WP:NPOV before making such ridiculous claims. PerDaniel (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Div999 is correct on all the issues this section. Editors should get more familiar with the Selfsource rule before citing it. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest how Wikipedia deals with alien sightings? the are all based on Selfsource and yet sometimes they are big/ridicules enough and picked up by some news agencies.

This section looks like conspiracy theory 101, as if there was a complete deal on the table, that jabari wanted to take and Israel assassinated in classified covert action thus the permission denied part. While in fact negotiations has been going on for a while(probably more than one draft achanged hands) and achieved an informal truce, which wasn't mediated by our activist. Our activist was working on his proposal(not on behalf of Israel or hamas) for the past year, and due to the escalation subjected it to both Israeli and Hamas, little before the operation. Not surprisingly he wasn't told of the operation and the world didn't stopped due to his draft. (You can read an interview with him here) One question though, where is this "and it was expected that he would respond to it positively." came from? --Mor2 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Background

An editor recently deleted a large chunk of the background section stating that "Few of the listed sources cite any connection between this information and OPOD".

The problem is that most of the sources in section do not cite any connection with OPOD, but the editor left most of them in the article, just choosing to delete a specific section while leaving the bulk of the material with similar non-connected citations in the article. If there is consensus to delete all sources not explicitly mentioning OPOD from the background, then that should be done in a neutral manner, not removing some of those sources while leaving the rest in. I don't have strong opinion on whether all the sources are deleted or all of them are left in, as long as the approach is consistent. Dlv999 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you list the sources you refer to, so we can improve/remove if necessary? --Mor2 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It all has to go as I mentioned a few sections above as it has nothing to do with POD. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the entire Background section? PerDaniel (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

POD was the Israeli code name for an offensive on Gaza that occurred in the context of an ongoing conflict between Gaza and Israel. I think it is useful and would be expected by the average reader that we would give a brief overview of the context in which the offensive occurred. Cited sources in the section include reports specifically about the offensive that give background information e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24]. There is zero justification for removing these sources.

There is a second question as to whether all sources that discuss the background to the offensive should mention POD. One pertinent point to remember here is that POD was only the Israeli code name for the offensive, it was not actually the common name of the event in RS. The majority of sources discussing the event do not mention the Israeli code name (There are twice as many google hits for "Gaza offensive" as there are for "Operation Pillar of Defense" for the time period of the offensive [25], [26]). If we adopted the policy that all sources had to mention the Israeli code name we would be excluding the majority of sources that cover the topic and the article would be skewed towards the Israeli POV. Dlv999 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem when we cite the source that doesn't connect the particular event to the topic of the article we doing WP:OR as the WP:RS should decide what relevant and what not we may give a wikilink to the Israel-Gaza conflict so the readers will decide themselves what is relevant.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources in the background section do connect the background coverage to the November offensive. see e.g [27]. Dlv999 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IP changes

So two IP editors seem to think that content which has nothing to do with POD belongs in this article, perhaps they will grace us with their presence and explain their reasons. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Error?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-clears-israel-from-charge-it-bombed-11-month-old-baby/ see current line of "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.[200][201]" (emphasis mine) 76.121.50.217 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the info. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ceasefire

There are two problems:-

• The first issue relates to formatting. Two fairly pointless images have been added to the "Operation timeline" section directly above the ceasefire section. As the operation timeline has no text (it is a link to the main article) it does not require any illustrative images. Furthermore the images placed in that section are pushed into the following ceasefire text where they are irrelevant. More importantly the irrelevant images push the Ceasefire textbox (which is of central importance to the ceasefire section) out of the ceasefire section and into the "Post-ceasefire incidents" section. The result is incoherence.

• The second issue relates to the linked articles in the "Post-ceasefire incidents" section. List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 covers violations of the ceasefire from both sides in 2012. There is no single article which covers violations of the ceasefire from both sides in 2013. List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 cover the violations of each side respectively. For some unknown reason several editors have tried to include one and not the other. Per WP:NPOV it should be both or neither. Dlv999 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

shortening the article

The article is obviously too long and needs some cleaning up. I think the entire media coverage section is pretty pointless. I suggest either merging it into the "reactions" subarticle and expanding the scope of that article, or simply deleting the section altogether.

I also think the spillover section and the post-ceasefire section should be deleted or shrunken down to 2-3 sentences each. Their current length is extremely disproportionate to their notability and importance. Capscap (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre operation events and fishermen

In this section Operation Pillar of Defense#Pre-operation events the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is cited generously regarding attacks on fishermen. Putting aside the reliability of this source especially in connection with claims not sourced elsewhere, the article quotes the PCHR regarding attacks that took place in July, some four months before the subject matter operation began. Can someone explain how we are supposed to apply Wikipedia's OR policy in connection with background material that is not verified as "background" material. Can editors go as far back as they please and cherry pick events they deem relevant? Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Amira Hass "Why the mullet, not the Israel Navy, are to blame for the death of a Gaza fisherman"

[28]This source is utilized importantly throughout the article. In none of the instances this op-ed is cited is it attributed to Amira Hass. This is important because Hass is of questionable reliability having been convicted of defaming settlers. I am trying to get the full text of the article to ensure there aren't any other problems. If someone can share it with me I would appreciate it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a news feature story rather than an op-ed. I can see the whole article. Are you sure can't see it ? How about via [29] ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stand corrected. Thanks for the link. It worked. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, source reliablility is a matter of editor consensus. You say that Hass defamed settlers. The court found her guilty of "publishing false accounts that vilified the residents." What her article actually did was to report, with an IDF response, what Palestinians said about a group of settlers. Reporting what someone says about someone else isn't defamation.     ←   ZScarpia   13:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to neutral title

Using official IDF designations is extremely biased to say tyhe least. A more generic title, based on the sources, should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I redirected this by mistake, but can't seem to revert myself. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What would be the OK title? -DePiep (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's just ... List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip. What a mess~of wiki titles. -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Something similar to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict‎. For the same reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something like November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, because there is March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, so using only year as identifier would be insufficient. Also, maybe even some other problems of this article might be fixed using the solutions for March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. 188.252.186.150 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose moving it per UCN Darkness Shines (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

This section is a mess and full of WP:SYNTH. What is the logic of events included in the background? And the descriptions of the various events? I searched the archives and found that this concern was raised even earlier in many places including here, here and here.

As far as I can see, the background section is talking about

• 2005 withdrawal
• Hamas Fatah conflict and 2007 coup
• Blockade
• 2008 war and ceasefire
• Rocket attacks and Israeli attacks since then
• Military capabilities of each side

I have no idea what is the logic of selecting these. To fix WP:SYNTH, I am using this BBC article (which is cited in the lead) as a source for the background, basically the section "What is the historical background to this crisis", which seems to cover much the same ground.

The topics covered in my new background, based on BBC article is:

• Brief mention of 1948 and 1967 and 2005 withdrawal
• Hamas Fatah conflict and 2007 coup
• Blockade
• 2008 war and ceasefire
• Rocket attacks and Israeli attacks since then

As far as I can see, they are the same, for the most part, except for the last section (military capabilities of each side), which I have removed. I will be writing the section in WP:SS for each of the topics based on their wikipedia.pages. Kingsindian (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have good faith reverted this edit. Firstly, one has to argue that the military capabilities of either side should be here. If we assume that it should be: if you wish to include military capabilities of either side, describe them both, not just one data point of one side. See commented section for some details. Of course, I agree that the article as a whole is a mess. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit about pre-operation events

@Wlglunight93: I don't understand the logic of this edit and this edit. Why is information from down below copy-pasted above, and then some part of the duplicated information removed but not the rest? The paragraph was in chronological order: stuff in early 2012, then July, August, September, October. Now there is randomly a paragraph talking about October 2012 first, then goes back to beginning of 2012, then July etc. I have reverted this for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not duplicated information. It talks about foreign support received by both Hamas and Israel, which is important. I'm restoring it. This is duplicated info indeed. I apologize for that mistake. I didn't notice it was already in the article.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: I am afraid that makes no sense. The information was copy-pasted from below. How is it possible that you didn't know that this information was already present? Your other edit may or may not be fine, I will respond later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I found that information from the Shin Bet, but I didn't notice it was already there. I'm sorry! It was an honest mistake. You corrected it. The other information about foreign support is nowhere in the article. You made a mistake by removing it.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: I am afraid I don't believe you. I am willing to WP:AGF, but this it too much to stomach. Your edit was a word to word copy paste from below, and even included a reference which said "dead link" from below, which was actually not a dead link. As I said, your other edit may or may not be correct, but I will address it later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I told you I'm sorry. I accepted your revert. There's nothing more I can do.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

As is so often the case with major Gaza/Israel conflicts, the lead has become bloated and contains duplications (e.g. Jabari assassination). It contains detail that belong in the main sections. As a start I intend to 'declutter' the section on the lead-up to the operation, and to merge the detail into the Background section. And even when it contains detail, the two adversaries are not equally represented. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@201.235.223.225: Regarding your revert of the text about Jabari being involved in the negotiation of a long term truce, your comment (no discussion by you in "Talk") seems to contain two messages: 1) "Gershon Baskin's opinion can't be used to state facts" and 2) "doesn't belong to lead". Treating 2) first, you believe that the fact that the man, whose assassination started the main conflict, was involved in the negotiations of a permanent peace agreement, does not belong in the Lead section, yet the model details of the rockets fired at Israel does. Could you explain this position instead of embarking on a non-discussed revert, please.

Regarding 1) - Your "Gershon Baskin's opinion can't be used to state facts" - the detailed section "Pre-operation Events" - does exactly that. But anyway, what makes you conclude that Baskin's relating of Jabari's involvement was an "opinion"? Baskin was intimately involved in the formulation process. Please explain in "Talk" this time. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Gershon Baskin is an unremarkable "peace activist" (meaning left-wing pro-Palestinian, with all due respect) who wrote an opinion piece for a minor anti-Israel newspaper like Haaretz (yes, there are anti-Israel websites in Israel, in a democracy that's not illegal). An opinion column in a biased POV newspaper by a dubious individual is not a reliable source to state facts, let alone without attribution, let alone in the lead. Besides, he is already included with proper attribution at the end of this section, so putting him also in the lead is redundant, POV and undue.--201.235.60.40 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that Ha'aretz is not WP:RS. You can read it's Wiki article, but allow me to highlight a few points: Ha'aretz is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. The English edition is published and sold together with the International New York Times. It functions for Israel much as The New York Times does for the United States. Now let's go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - there is not a whiff there of Ha'artz not being WP:RS. So, if you don't mind, I will reject that rebuttal as being invalid.

Gershon Baskin is a "dubious individual"? He is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post which has a 'central' political leaning; he has a Ph.D. in international relations; he was instrumental in the negotiations with Hamas leading to Gilad Shalit's release; he has been a key contact person between the Israeli government and Hamas; he was decorated by the Prime Minister of Italy; he was awarded the Histadrut Prize for Peace, the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute Peace Prize and the Tribute of Honor and Courage from the World Movement for Democracy. And you blandly, without any confirming support, brand him as "a dubious person". If that is not a mega-POV, then I have yet to see one. REJECTED. And finally, you believe that the assassination of a key player by a party in a peace negotiation of international importance does not warrant being in the summary prelude? Imagine if a US negotiator were to be assassinated by the Iranians. We would never hear the end of it. REJECTED!!!

I await a relevant response before reverting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@201.235.60.40:Please see above Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gershon Baskin IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE! Jabari was not a "US negotiator". He was a senior Hamas terrorist who was the subject of a targeted killing. I wouldn't consider Gershon Baskin a reliable source to state facts, among other things because it contradicts the fact that the assassination of Ahmed Jabari was precipitated by three days of rocket fire from Gaza to Israel (that's not a "truce"). But that's not even my main point. He is already mentioned at the end of this section and his inclusion in the lead (plus without attribution) is redundant and fails balance, lead, NPOV and undue. You have Gershon Baskin in the proper section, so why your insistence on adding such a controversy about alleged "truce/peace talks" in the lead? The circumstances surrounding Jabari's death are developed elsewhere in the article.--Super Cable Guy (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Super Cable Guy:Re yr "George Baskin is already in the article" - that is why there is a Lead to summarise important points from the detailed text. It is quite common.

Jabiri was a Hamas negotiator - even more pertinent to this case.

Re yr "I wouldn't consider Gershon Baskin a reliable source to state facts, among other things because it contradicts the fact that the assassination of Ahmed Jabari was precipitated by three days of rocket fire from Gaza to Israel (that's not a "truce")." Your reasoning is a flawed 'non sequitur' - there is zero logic in rejecting Baskin as a source of facts about Jabari's involvement in the formulation of a permanent truce (with Israeli knowledge) and offering as your rejection of him, rocket fire during three previous days; firing rockets and formulating a truce are not mutally exclusive in either space or time. You need to prove that Baskin had no knowledge of Jabari's involvement in a permanent truce and you have failed to provide that.

Regarding your "precipitated by three days of rocket fire from Israel" claim, I challenge the source of your information. My sources show that in the days prior to Jabari's assassination on 14 November 2012, rocket fire was minimal; and they explain why:

'Qassam Count' - there was almost no rocket fire on 11 November. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that Palestinian factions were in talks over a truce and were keen to see calm restored. Israel’s Ynet reported on 11 November: Egyptian Intelligence officials have successfully brokered an end to the current round of escalation in the south, Ynet learned Sunday. No Israeli source has corroborated the report.

On 12 November, two rockets were fired into Israel according to 'Qassam Count'. This came amid two days of air attacks by Israel on the Gaza Strip [by far the majority of attacks in the days before 14 November were perpetrated by Israel - See PCHR reports].

13 November: After five days of mounting violence, Israel and the Palestinians stepped back from the brink of a new war in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, sending signals to each other via Egypt that they would hold their fire unless attacked. The report added: Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of Gaza’s Hamas government, praised the main armed factions in the enclave for agreeing on Monday night to a truce. “They showed a high sense of responsibility by saying they would respect calm should the Israeli occupation also abide by it,” he said.

14 November: "Israel destroys the truce" - Yet Israel was not interested in calm. On 14 November Israel carried out the extrajudicial killing of Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari.

Second source: "The assassination breaks a day-old lull in what was intense fighting between the Israeli military and Palestinian fighters in Gaza. A tacit truce was reached with the help of Egypt, but Israel has now broken it decisively."

Third source: "On November 14, two days after Palestinian factions in Gaza agree to a truce following several days of violence, Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas' military wing, Ahmed Jabari"

If you need further confirmation that Israel broke a truce and assassinated Jabari - just give a shout - there are dozens more sources; I have not even started with the Human Rights NGOs.

Now that I've shown you mine, you show me yours. And please, don't stoop to going back to before the truce was announced. That would be plain silly.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Gershon is one of several opinions, and it doesn't belong to the lead, which already shows both points of view. Your proposed addition is repeated and disputed content. Just because it suits your politics, it doesn't need to be said twice. I think you refuse to wp:get the point.--Super Cable Guy (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Bombing of media facilities" section

The section was incoherent. I have rearranged the section according to this scheme:

• Casualties
• Israeli justification
• HRW investigation for four of the incidents which they said did not appear to be on military targets
• One separate incident, Al Shrouk incident, which appeared to be on military target. Also give HRW statement on this. It was repeated twice in different paragraphs, I have combined them and added the references in once place.
• Reporters without borders, NYT statement
• NGO monitor statement

Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Massacre

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.“WarKosign” 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Operation Pillar of Defense

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operation Pillar of Defense's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident: "Report: Six Iranians killed in Israeli strike in Syria, including Revolutionary Guards general". Jerusalem Post. 19 January 2015.
• From Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia". Asian History. 1 August 2005. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
• From China–Israel relations: "It's kosher: Israel embraces Chinese investment". Ejisight. May 15, 2015. Retrieved 14 May 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

B'Tselem acknowledged "challenges IDF faces" etc.

I have good faith reverted this edit. The source cited is simply a newspaper analysis/interpretation of B'Tselem's report. This kind of language does not appear in the B'Tselem report. There is no basis to include such a statement here, where the bulk of B'Tselem's analysis is in the opposite direction. There is no language of acknowledging challenges IDF faced in Hamas mixing with civilians in the B'Tselem report that I could find. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Operation Pillar of Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140301205413/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jRUtS7PreKQztfBnueg5yNep0ROg?docId=CNG.eceda380b55ad442c0c0b524c5263e34.61 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jRUtS7PreKQztfBnueg5yNep0ROg?docId=CNG.eceda380b55ad442c0c0b524c5263e34.61
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131017130455/http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=516096 to http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=516096
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130401204048/http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/744662.shtml to http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/744662.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140301205212/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ioN43hW5vfWvhLReATBl4YQzcR5Q?docId=CNG.f4d4fec426309741ec996fb87c31f219.1391 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ioN43hW5vfWvhLReATBl4YQzcR5Q?docId=CNG.f4d4fec426309741ec996fb87c31f219.1391
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130129082712/http://www.itn.co.uk:80/World/61942/hamas-lists-demands-for-truce-with-israel to http://www.itn.co.uk/World/61942/hamas-lists-demands-for-truce-with-israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121128095050/http://www.state.gov:80/secretary/rm/2012/11/200960.htm to http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/200960.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131119235725/http://www.france24.com/en/20131118-palestinians-settlers-clash-west-bank to http://www.france24.com/en/20131118-palestinians-settlers-clash-west-bank/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121129015236/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0-5VWAmt308BKSElZlPWfRibdcw? to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0-5VWAmt308BKSElZlPWfRibdcw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120124160539/http://twitter.com:80/MajorEChirchir to https://twitter.com/MajorEChirchir
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121112215609/https://twitter.com/HSMPress to https://twitter.com/HSMPress
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121116194700/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/middle-east/2012/11/15/israel-and-hamas-battle-social-media-well/O2zOPWK7t3FG4QeMBhxVpL/story.html to http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle-east/2012/11/15/israel-and-hamas-battle-social-media-well/O2zOPWK7t3FG4QeMBhxVpL/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Operation Pillar of Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130512050615/http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20130509_pillar_of_defense_report to http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20130509_pillar_of_defense_report
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140312171355/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-tunnel-explodes-gaza-border-17686902 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-tunnel-explodes-gaza-border-17686902#.UKnxEIefvuE
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121202182048/https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20121120_gaza_fatalities to http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20121120_gaza_fatalities
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121122035903/http://presstv.com/detail/2012/11/19/273385/china-condemns-israeli-attack-on-gaza/ to http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/11/19/273385/china-condemns-israeli-attack-on-gaza/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130730145230/http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=456924 to http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=456924
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121205115542/http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/after-cast-lead/by-date-of-event to http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/after-cast-lead/by-date-of-event
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006165532/http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/089e1adbfa5f4aeea01551ef4e1e9ba6/ML--Iran-Gaza to http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/089e1adbfa5f4aeea01551ef4e1e9ba6/ML--Iran-Gaza
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150720204213/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-12/rocket-hits-israeli-yard-after-overnight-lull to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-12/rocket-hits-israeli-yard-after-overnight-lull
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131119235725/http://www.france24.com/en/20131118-palestinians-settlers-clash-west-bank to http://www.france24.com/en/20131118-palestinians-settlers-clash-west-bank/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160206080414/http://www.mezan.org/en/uploads/files/17207.pdf to http://www.mezan.org/en/uploads/files/17207.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140327212440/http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications to http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121120010011/http://www.aljazeera.com:80/indepth/spotlight/gazacrisis/ to http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/gazacrisis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Pillar of Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=17207&ddname=IOF&id_dept=22&id2=9&p=center

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sequence of events

The prelude has problems: It jumps around in time, makeing the following of the sequence of events confusing. I have altered the order of the text and the wording so as to move logically forward in time as the various contributing events unfolded. Also made it clear who did the killing of Jabiri. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)