Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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

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

==and hamas has no policy ,they might give the wrong number just for publicity , you should balance it out with the israeli number .

Image vandalism

Someone keep an eye out please. [1][2]Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Tineline section

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

+1

according to hamas?

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

Media claim shouldn't be attributed to Israel

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

Involvement of PFLP/DFLP

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

Their involvement will be the same as other Palestinian armed forces i.e. participation in the fighting and the ceasefire negotiations. See [3][4] for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Percentages?

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

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

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

The current percentage of civilians killed is based on a very outdated death count. The implication is that 72% of the 508 who have been killed are civilians. However, the 72% figure comes from 375 killed. Maybe this is the best way to do it, it just seems misleading.

WP:Summary style example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nishidani Thanks for yor comprehensive analysis on the issue. The problem is that an IP has smashed the glass of our discussion by omitting the whole paragraph and insisting on doing it. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Help

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

I think it's in there. Search the page for "194". That's the note number. tharsaile (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Brother's Keeper

Regarding the following reverts (1, 2), I'm waiting for Monopoly31121993 to define "better sources" for us and explain the removal of the figures for the number of Palestinian arrested (500 - The Economist, 600 - Maannews). He also claimed that the previous wording was not neutral. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted your revert of my edit, the other one was my own. What I did was to add three sources to the text which had 0 sources before. The previous text which you reverted claimed that 10 people were killed during the operation without any citation. The source I believe you wanted to use but didn't was Maan News but since they were they only ones making that claim in an article it's not enough to include it in the introduction section.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about the 500 figure. That, you are correct should be changed. my appologies, I thought you were referring to the 10 deaths figure provided by Maan.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to make that change to the "at least 500" figure.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How can you claim that the text had "zero" sources, when all your edit summaries clearly acknowledge the existing sources? You did say that your sources are "better" and the existing Maannews is unreliable. Therefore, the citation did have a source and you know that very well.

Maannews is reliable. Any objections? raise a case to the WP:RSN and come back with consensus that it's unreliable. Only then you are able to remove it. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the existing consensus, that it is reliable. The statement is to remain with attribution, along with the other sources. And for the record, you did revert my changes twice ([1 and 2]). Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Like, I said, I support re-introducing those figures from Maannews. I think it should say " 5 to 10 Palestinians were killed" with the Maan reference for the 10 stat but still keeping the 5 since that was also cited. I was the one who initially moved the Maan reference to that sentence as it was previously without any citation. I then edited my own edit although I can see now how you would think it was yours because you wrote the initial text without leaving the proper citation. I, of course, hadn't checked that edit (from 18 July) when I added the citation. Anyway, I think we could have avoided this by using the talk page first. I'm sorry about that but I appreciate your efforts to resolve this quickly and and hopefully this will get changed right away. I'm not able to edit the page currently so I hope another editor sees this and does that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to rename it the second Gaza-war

The second Gaza-War seams like a good title by me.--Ezzex (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources calling it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I bother talking to you about it.--Ezzex (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have RS? If not, its just OR. Coltsfan (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay the way it is. Calling it by it's name no more implies sympathy for one side than calling Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union "Operation Barbarossa" implies pro-German sentiment Costatitanica (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an archived move-request discussion already - more than one, actually. Consensus was leave it the way it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the consensus can change. This isn't carved in rock.--Ezzex (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus changes when reliable sources start call it something else. It may be years before analyst give a historical name to the operation/conflict. —Farix (t | c) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and I would probably weakly support a name change (depending on what the proposed name is of course) - but making move requests when the previous one closed just a few days ago can be disruptive. As there is not an obvious "correct" title, it does no harm to let this one sit until there is either a very clear majority of titles used in netral reliable sources, or until there is an much greater momentum for change by the editors. Per Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES mostly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with BB and Coltsfan. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Should we request for semi-protection for this page to avoid those IPs manipulate the article? Mhhossein (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed they removed it - yes, I would also support the return of semi-protection - an article like this is just too 'hot' with too much potential for POV-pushing and vandalism - at least while the military operation is still current.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support it. Anyone who has something of value to add can get autoconfirmed, or make an edit request. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand against this not only because there aren't many problems with IP edits so far, but also because there are so many active registered editors currently maintaining it that the number of IP vandals is hardly whelming. Check the revision history - not a single IP edited today (unless I missed one), and only one IP edited yesterday, and it was a good edit.--ɱ (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

17 july reference inaccuracy

"Israel claimed it had given the hospital multiple advance warnings to evacuate their 17 patients before attacking a weapons storage facility at the hospital." The referenced article for that statement (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/uk-palestinians-israel-idUKKBN0FM2ME20140717) doesn't say anything about a hospital or weapons storage facility. Is it the wrong ref? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

For addition to the "media coverage" section of Operation Protective Edge.

Criticism of the Reuters' Coverage

On July 14, it was revealed that the senior Gaza correspondent to Reuters was a Palestinian named Nidal al-Mughrabi. Since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, Mr. al-Mughrabi's articles were overwhelmingly anti-Israel in nature. Of his 27 articles written since the beginning of the conflict, 21 were slanted in favor of the Palestinian cause.

References

PDX1989 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided any sources discussing this issue, nor stating any criticism from reliable sources. The links to the WP:PRIMARY sources where presumably you counted and evaluated them, is WP:OR 18:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Misleading infobox stats

As currently presented, the infobox stats are misleading.

They indicate a number killed, as reported by source x, and then a "percentage civilians". But that "percentage civilians" number comes from a source that says the number killed (448) is very much below the number claimed in the first source (572; a 28 per cent increase over the number used to calculate per cent civilian casualties). It's a bit of apples and organges. Which the scientists among us, at minimum, would see as very misleading. There are various ways to address this, but however it is done I would urge that it be done. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Total casualties are reported much more frequently than civilian counts, so reporting the outdated absolute number of civilians next to the up-to-date total casualties is misleading. --JFH (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The percentage number source is updated at the morning of each day and it updates with numbers from the previous day, while source x is updated almost every hour. So in essence, nothing strange about one being lower than the other since the source for the lower number can be late by a full 24 hours in updating. Also, the percentage number source itself notes the number is preliminary. EkoGraf (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF's figures till this morning gave 180 Hamas militants dead. The number of Palestinians dead rose to 604.The IDF is therefore saying it can identify less than one-third of those killed as Hamas members, which, again, looks like confirming the 70% calculation for civilian casualties. This is evident from the same source, and the inference is hardly WP:SYNTH, just obvious arithmetic. One might also add that the Hamas killing of Israelis shows the opposite proportions: 27 soldiers dead, and 2 civilians.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF figures say 183 dead since the ground operation began which only covers the last four days of the conflict, it does not include the claim of 100 Hamas members killed during the initial phase of air strikes. Why are references to this continuously being removed? 86.145.120.6 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a firm view as to how it is fixed. But it should be fixed.

It's clearly inaccurate in what it suggests. It suggests that x percent of group y were civilians. But all we know is that x percent of group y-124 were civilians.

We don't know that the same percentage of civilians were killed in the most recent 124 killings. The infobox suggests we do. This broad error is not "fixed" by the use of the word preliminary ... which relates of course not the additional 124 killed, but to the initial 448 killed.

We have no reason to believe (other than OR) that the percentage remained the same. And as the course and method of fighting changes, it is certainly appropriate to not assume that the percentage will remain the same. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor editing query

"Iron Dome" or "the Iron Dome"? I haven't looked at it closely enough to have a view. Though this press release by the manufacturer suggests the first above construct. But I think we should be consistent (we're not presently). On this, at this point I care mostly about consistency. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

After quickly reviewing the sources in the Iron Dome article, it seems that "Iron Dome" is the name of the system, but "the" is added if it is a phrasing such as "the Iron Dome system" There are also uses of the term as an adjective or collective noun - "another Iron Dome battery was added" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a closer look. It's not consistent. The very first appearance of it, in the lede, says "Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome". --Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is written both ways. Is there a point to the query tho? do you think something needs to be changed somewhere? It would be interesting to see if the definite article is used consistently or not in Hebrew, but thats a ways beyond my ken. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just consistency. Which in general is a goal of ours at the Project. See WP:ARTCON. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Hamas claimed they counted 52 dead Israeli soldier since the beginning of the ground offensive. Mohmeida (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014

Unfortunately, I would like to add a template to te Background section([5]) due to the noticeboard discussion initiated here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is making this request? Please sign in, or someone figure out why the IP address is not appearing above ^.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have tagged the Background section for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on this talk page and there seems to be a consensus among editors that using sources that pre-date the conflict is appropriate for the background section and in common with other background sections of similar articles. Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas/Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades strength

Our Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades article gives estimates of "several hundred" "trained" plus ~10,000 "reinforcements". But these estimates a) seem old (2008, 2011 etc) and b) seem to be estimates from Israel. Obviously as they mostly wish to remain anonymous and are not organized in the same way as a traditional military, and fighters may include spontaneous volunteers from the civilian population, firm estimates are going to be hard to pin down, but is anyone aware of any reliable sources documenting/estimating the size of the Palestinian forces at this time? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not use Arab media as references

WP:FORUM. One side doesn't want to use arab sources. One side doesn't want to use israeli/US sources. Both sets of sources have value, and both sets have flaws. Make policy based arguments about specific content and not borderline racist WP:POLEMICs and it will serve better

Editors should avoid using arabian newspapers as references. There are a lot of articles about this issue in British and US newspapers. This article have far to much references from Arabian sources. There are over 100 references and over 50 % seams to be arabian/muslim. Examples: Al Jazeera, The Gulf Today, Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.107.191 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Idiotic. Sorry, but that's exactly what your blanket-statement is. If the source passes RS muster, it is valid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). Translation:'Ma'an reports the bare facts and details of Palestinians who are killed in war and under the occupation, and these occupied people are by definition 'terrorists' because, like the fathers of most of Israel's elite, they fight to obtain independence for their country. All of the Biritsh-denominated 'terrorists' of the Irgun and Stern Gangs were awarded medals as heroes of the struggle for independence afterwards, and several became Prime Ministers.No such parity is permitted to Palestinians who imitate the lesson, nor to organs that describe neutrally the facts of their 'evil' struggle.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Nishidani: The original comment didn't justify a rational response. Your time would have better spent educating the new editor or simply ignoring. 186.93.107.191: Please see WP:RS and point out specific sources that are biased. Arab media is valid. A larger concern should be Western blogs attempting to mimic RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC) redacted comment by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (removed by Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)) This is an unfortunate suggestion. Are we to not even consider Al Jazeera or Daily Star of Beirut?Dogru144 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Typo to correct: "to remain in their homes despite warnings of immanent airstrikes"

Should be "imminent" 184.175.45.197 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I re-worded it per the source cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict – I moved this article from the incredibly biased use of the official IDF designation, to what most sources actually call it: 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza The lead should be changed accordingly, but a random Israeli IP reverted me.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC) How is the new page name not biased ? Israel is under attack by rocket fire from Gaza, yet your title implies that Israel attacks Gaza. At very least the title should be about bi-directional violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fine, with quotation marks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous conflicts of the Gaza–Israel conflict are named:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETTENTIO PLEASE

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

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

LOOK HERE IF U DONT BELIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support as the article is about more than the Israeli operation. // Liftarn (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support -its a POV title - the media only use it, when I hear it used , with the preface 'Israel says its Operation protective edge is designed to..whatever' - it isn't the name used in the media when introducing its general coverage of the conflict Sayerslle (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• support it is clear that this article is covering more than just the IDF operation. However, a redirect should be left behind not the nodredirect as specified in the MR. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Such as...? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another reason why the the proposed title (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) is inappropriate is that it is misleading. The Gaza–Israel conflict has been going on since 2006. The latest fighting is part of that conflict; the latest fighting is not a new conflict. Also, no good argument has been provided for how the current title (Operation Protective Edge) violates NPOV. We have articles for Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Pillar of Defense, etc. Our policy states that we should use a name that is commonly used in the sources, and Operation Protective Edge is the most common name. "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" is not a name. We don't title the Barack Obama article 2009-2017 United States president. Something like the latter should only be used if a proper name does not exist.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

just a top of my head thought reading that, - operation Barbarossa , that began as a clear-cut one way street - Nazi Germany launched an attack on its erstwhile Stalinist ally - but this isn't just a one-way street is it - as Israels leaders never tire of pointing out - they are being attacked from gaza - and how is 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict misleading - its not a new conflict you say but it is this years distinct manifestation of an underlying conflict - I think its fine as a title - and i'm sure I've seen it, or very close approximation, used as titling for reports on the conflict - the IDF name is not used except when introducing one sides stated objectives kind of thing - I don't see channel 4s news on this titled 'operation protective edge' - not at all, - you don't see that - it would be wrong because it would look like channel 4 was kind of letting Israel frame , and subliminally justify, the conflict for it Sayerslle (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article has serious typo in its name

Has anyone noticed that the title is 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict, and that it should be Israel?

How can this change be made? I don't want to get blocked.Dogru144 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

By an admin. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. My sincere apologies for screwing that up. Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

This is to go to the end of the section on Flight cancellations, to resolve the airline carriers announced they are renewing the flights[citation needed]. (Actually just one carrier is resuming flights.) and US Airways said it would renew flights. Dogru144 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) I've put references back where they were.Dogru144 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Israel had supported and created Hamas according to American Politician Ron Paul, Israel wanted Hamas to destroy Fatah and hence supported Hamas. Israel then turned on Hamas after they betrayed them. Homous888 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) returning references to where they were.Dogru144 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done YouTube is not a reliable source. Mike V • Talk 15:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Infobox

The current Haaretz livefeed (9:28 pm http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606735) is reporting 150 Palestinians arrested in Gaza, this should probably be included in the infobox.

Additionally as the IDF is treating the missing soldier as dead should the infobox say missing presumed dead.

I also do not understand why the foreign worker (farm worker, although the article says aid) is being counted distinctly to civilians, should the casualties on the Israeli side not just say 3 civilians - if deemed to be relevant details about their jobs can go later in the article, not the infobox 86.145.120.6 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The missing soldier is presumed dead, but per the IDF, until confirmed, he is officially missing. The beligerents in this conflict are Israel and Gaza. The worker is not an Israeli civilian, but a foreign worker. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How am I blocked? Censorship?

How am I blocked? I find something about edit conflict. These edit conflicts can happen all the time. This seems unfair, and possibly POV and censorious to block an editor. Please inform me what offence I did by adding this? How did this result in my block?

and US Airways said it would renew flights.

This is an ongoing news-driven page, and the block prevents users from adding valid content. Dogru144 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDC. Th4n3r (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

crap UNIQ edits

Were due to a wikimedia bug, that has now been rolled back, so the problems should be gone now. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

We should not start down the road of using "claim" on the various side's statements. There are plenty of accusations in both directions that events are staged or played up for the media. Its an endless rabbit hole. Particularly in this case as there is no source commenting that this is a mere "claim" rather than an authentic incident. "Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during what is claimed to be a Hamas rocket attack.". Should we be adding similar "claim" annotations to all photos? I don't think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

comment moved by Gaijin42 to merge sections

One photo caption has the phrase "what is claimed to be" in its description. Is that something we intend to insert in all images, where the caption is based on on a "claim" (claim is perhaps an overly strong word unless there is cause for it, such as articles indicating "claims" of similar articles are fabricated). If so, let's put the phrase in similar articles. If not, let's delete it. But whatever we do, let's be even-handed, unless there is a top-level RS report that suggests that a "claim" is questioned. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See, bolstering and expanding upon my points above, wp:claim. Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source confirming that the photo was taken during a Hamas rocket attack? It was uploaded from the IDF's Flickr account.[7] Here is the caption (exactly the way it was released) before rewriting it:

IDF officers shield a 4-year-old boy, protecting him with their own bodies during a Hamas rocket attack 15.7.2014

This is how I rewrote it:

Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during what is claimed to be a Hamas rocket attack.

But some editors insist that it should go like this, even though it doesn't address the issue:

Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during a rocket attack.

I didn't want to repeat 'IDF' twice, but if you want to avoid weasel wording, we can write it like this:

IDF-released photo claiming to show Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during a rocket attack.

In my opinion the last one looks more accurate and complies with NPOV. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The same problem exists with photos published by Hamas interior ministry, which are presented without attribution to Hamas. Even bigger problem is with self published photos, whose specific data can not be verified, and this goes for most of the photos. If we start to use the term "claim" we will have to use it in most of photos.--Tritomex (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources confirming all of the Palestinian photos are taken the way they are described? The government is not an unreliable source (although it certainly does have its own POV and agenda). That is a problem shared by all of the Hamas-sympathetic photographers too, and there are multiple historical instances of them staging photos. We must take both sides statements at face value unless quetioned by a reliable source. For us to question ourselves is pure WP:OR. Are the two "wounded child" pictures only claims of wounded children? The guy laying on his back with guys holding submachine guns behind him - is he just claimed to be wounded? We cannot apply this type of reasoning only to one side. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do any RS use the photo ? It seems that it's only used by Israeli embassies and pro-Israel organizations. I assume that's because it is quite a good example of effective war propaganda (which doesn't mean it's not true of course). Obviously we can't participate in that PR effort so I can understand the concerns about using Wikipedia's narrative voice to, in effect, speak (via their photo descriptions) on behalf of Hamas, the IDF or any of the organizations trying to kill eachother. Perhaps a compromise might be IDF photo captioned "Yesterday, IDF officers used their own bodies to shield a 4 year-old boy from a Hamas rocket." or something along those lines. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Again the same criticism can be said of all of the Palestinian photos sourced to Basel Yazouri's flickr account. They are also quite effective propaganda photos that may also be true. Due to the difficulty of obtaining photographs, wikipedia explicitly has a more lax standard on photographs as outlined in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. We cannot apply a standard to one set of photographs and not the other. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There was no criticism intended in anything I wrote. I haven't said anything about any other photos because this section is about this IDF photo. I'm not likely to object to separating the encyclopedia's voice from the source's voice for other photos because I support attribution in the topic area when it's clearly required, given the topic's contentious nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

At least the ones depicting the damage in Gaza look legit, and if some of them don't, then feel free to fix their issues. This one in particular does not look significant enough to prove or even slightly suggest that it was during a "Hamas rocket attack". It could have been taken anywhere (even a studio) and it looks, in a way, like an advertisement. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume Basel Yazouri is the photographer who publishes via Activestills.org. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean solution is on the right lines

IDF photo captioned "Yesterday, IDF officers used their own bodies to shield a 4 year-old boy from a Hamas rocket."

Captioned replaces claims. The photographer wasn't worried about being blasted by the mortar/missile that was about to his the vicinity of the boy. In fact he was so cool, unperturbed he got the perfect shot. It translates, within the context of IDF propaganda about Hamas cowardly using 'human shields' to save their skins, 'on the other hand, we of the IDF use our bodies to save (Israeli) lives, esp. those of children.? Bravo. Crap. Not bravura crap because whoever set up the photo did not know that in posing the soldiers to the left and right of the boy, so that the photographer could get a photo from the front showing the left-right shielding, the point was to falsify the natural reflexes of protecting someone. If you shield a person, you do not expose the person's flank to the threatened shrapnel. You enveloppe his/her body so that it is invisible, totally shielded from the incoming fire, which however would ruin the propaganda angle by making the child invisible to the photo lens. Anyone familiar with the history of pictoral conventions can see that give-away hint of a posed picture at a glance, and it's, frankly, an embarrassingly incompetent piece of fabricated propaganda on technical grounds, unless (not to be ruled out) it was a complete fluke, a lusus naturae, which I for one doubt. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Resident

There is absolutely no need to add a citation needed tag to the nonsense that states something like 'rockets are sent by Gazan residents (other than Hamas et al)'. This is egregiously stupid English, and can only be explained by suggesting what whoever penned it lives in Jerusalem where Eastern Jerusalem Palestinians/Arabs have 'residence' or are 'residents'. If you are an American, or English or Italian or whatever, you are not a 'resident' in your native country. You are American, English or Italian (who may reside in New York, London, or Milan). To use the word 'resident' of the population of Gaza implies they are not legitimate citizens of the Gazan Strip, but have been provisorily given permission to reside in that sector of what some extremists consider to be The Land of Israel. If one sees obvious crap, esp. tweaked POV-insinuating language intended to delegitimate a people while confusing militants and civilians, so they're all targets, one removes it. One does not place a tag on it. One gets a shovel and moves the shit off the page. Good night Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't read it with that particular tilt (regarding non-citizenship). The implication to me is that it is the general populace firing the rockets rather than just the Hamas militia. that does raise the issue you have mentioned though of possibly describing all people legitimate targets (much as the statements from Hamas have done for Israelis). Due to that concern, and that the source currently linked there is specifically attributing the rockets to Hamas, I will remove the offending bit. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The simplest editing principle is: add nothing unless you have an RS source verifying the statement, at your elbow, preferably having read it. If that statement was entered as appears unsourced, or failed verification, it goes out. One doesn't beat about the bush. This is a hard article and requires stringent control over the manifold abuses of irresponsible editing. And, please familiarise yourself with Israeli-English usage (and I appreciate that you have removed it).Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the citation needed tag because I felt that the claim, that rockets were being fired by average Joes and Janes in the Gaza Strip, needed a reference. I've never heard of this before. It had nothing to do with the word resident, and I don't feel that that word is particularly actionable. Resident seems like a pretty neutral word to me, because we have no way of knowing whether or not the people firing these are all actual citizens of the Gaza Strip. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ergo of the 788 dead, only a dozen are known citizens of Gaza, so the default term for Gazans, is 'residents of Gaza'. The word 'resident' in the I/P context bears this specific connotation, and it is not neutral. Secondly, to repeat. A controversial point raised by phrasing which cannot find a correlated grounding in available texts should be removed. One must write according to what one reads, and refrain from temptations to make claims that google searches cannot corroborate quickly but which stay in because they are 'tagged'. Tagging here, rather than deletion, favours the incompetence of the original drafter, who could not supply a textual warrant for what he or she wrote. This is basic editing practice.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeking to resolve Airlines stop flights section issue

A sentence remains hanging, awkward. It still reads, and the airline carriers announced they are renewing the flights[citation needed]. The flights that have resumed includes US Airways. I gave the documentation above. So, can it not be allowed? (Since then, Air Canada, Delta and United are returning.)Dogru144 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there aren't any remaining issues.

July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing

This topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions. One of the obligations that places on editors is "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". The reliability of news sources varies of course from the very many respectable mainstream sources covering the conflict, to the other end of the spectrum, the dog shit sources that should be avoided like the plague. Given the plentiful supply of high quality sources there is no reason for anyone to use sources that fall towards the dog shit end of the scale. And yet it happens, over and over again.

With that in mind, here are some comments on the so-called "July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing"

• Do any sources, perhaps sources with a novel approach to the English language, call this a bombing ? If not, why are we calling it a bombing ?
• The Daily Beast, a source towards the dog shit end of the RS spectrum, is being used to provide WP:V compliance for a piece of information in the section but says nothing about the event, unsurprisingly, because it was in fact written 4 days before the event even happened. This is an example of using a shitty source, when much better ones are available, in a way that defies the laws of physics and is genuinely puzzling. I tried to remove it but it was restored.
• The Jewish Press, is being used. This source is well into the dog shit territory of RS space. There is no reason at all to use partisan unreliable sources like this.
• The Washington Free Beacon and The Algemeiner Journal. Again, partisan rags. Don't use them. Use Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, Haaretz, NYT, JPost and countless other mainstream sources

Editing in ARBPIA is not easy and it's not for everyone. Editors are required to be competent and understand policy. They are required to edit neutrally. They are required to never violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. They are required to use the best sources available, not the worst sources available. The July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing section is an example of what happens when things go wrong. It needs to be fixed with the best available sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can at least clear one part of the problem (already did). The Daily Beast reference was a mis-direct to an earlier reference about rockets in UNRWA schools (both were named "unrwaRocket"). I have fixed the link by renaming the earlier reference as "unrwaRocketGunness". The link now correctly points to the Al Jazeera source here[8]. Kingsindian (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following fix for the first part of that section, removing dopey sources and replacing them with secure ones, while filling in the actual background details missing (the schools were vacant, not schools like the one that was shelled) and removing irrelevancies like a reaction coda (the State Dep.said it was okay, Canada (predictably) was worried. Just the facts.

Some 117,000 Palestinians are sheltering in more than 170 schools across the Gaza Strip. The UN agency UNRWA has a number of institutions and schools in the Gaza region, and as of 24 July, 23 had been closed, 77 damaged in the fighting and three Palestinian UNWRA employees killed, two at home and a third while walking home from his work place. Hamas took advantage of the closures to employ some of these vacant UNWRA buildings as weapon storage sites. UNRWA officials, on discovering that two such vacated schools had been employed for storing rockets, condemned Hamas's actions. UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon ordered an investigation after Israel alleged that UNWRA transferred the arsenals to Hamas. UNRWA denied the claim, stating that the armouries had been transferred to local police authorities under the Ramallah national unity government's authority, in accordance with "longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide".

If this finds approval, anyone can pop it in.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I have posted the above verbatim, just added an "allegedly" before the claim that Hamas took advantage of the school closures etc. I am not sure "allegedly" is the right word, but the Foreign Policy article does not give any evidence, just makes the allegation. Kingsindian (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also replaced Daily Beast source with Times of Israel source for "longstanding..." comment. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also removed references to Algemeiner, reworded and referenced CNN instead here[9]. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think 'allegedly' should be put before the Hamas use of schools. That is what UNRWA men in the field reported, and like other independent neutral observers of what actually happens on the ground, we should just say that. It was the UNRWA people who found these armouries, secured them, and handed them over to the Palestinian authorities, and therefore it is not IDF hearsay, or the usual junk reportage in virtually every newspaper allegding 'stuff'.

All this hot-air about Hamas's 'terroristic' use of tunnels and civilian areas for arms caches is of course completely hypocritical, since it is modelled on an old Israeli pattern, like much else in Palestinian tactics, terroristic or otherwise. But of course the world's journalists are too busy respouting official handouts and the terms in which the narrative is supposed to be spun, or in joining the bums' rush of copycats in their industry to ever read the actual history of the area. What Hamas does is exactly what the Yishuv did during the period of British rule, when it kept 1,500 weapons caches in kibbutzim, moshavim, cities and towns Identical. As the author of a thorough Hebrew language book on the caches said:

"The point of departure for those in the Jewish Yishuv who hatched the idea of building weapons caches in places such as synagogues, women's rooms, children's houses was that British officers and troops were gentlemen who wouldn't dare to search in such places."

Make your own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of international reactions removal

I Removed the "Map" as there are far too many errors, a file with this amount of errors cannot seriously be used on this page, I was going through it and literally three out of the first three countries I looked through (Venezuela, Uruguay and Ireland) contained errors, the map should return but only after every country has been checked and errors correctedGuyb123321 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the map is a faithful reflection of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, which is pretty exhaustively researched and cited. When it's this easy to cross-reference the map information to (often) a primary source, we should definitely try to improve it rather than condemn it arbitrarily.

To revisit your three examples:

Ireland: Foreign Ministry "equally condemns" both rocket attacks from Gaza towards Israel and air strikes by the Israeli military = green. CHECK

Venezuela: President "vigorously condemns the unfair and disproportionate military response by the illegal state of Israel against the heroic Palestinian people" = red. CHECK

Uruguay: Foreign Ministry "strenuously condemns" Israel's attacks against Gaza for the death toll of civilians, including women and children; calls them a "disproportionate response" - red. CHECK

Honestly, we'll have to find at least one genuine error before pulling this kind of stunt; and even then, a good-faith course of action would be to discuss the issue and reach an agreement. If you do find any errors, please share them here as I would be happy to do additional research and upload a correction forthwith. Albrecht (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many problems with the map. Most countries have released multiple statements (either from multiple people, or from the same entity) at this point, and most of them give at least lip service to criticizing both sides. Picking which statement from a country to use to render the map is WP:OR and going to be inherently out of date and subject to WP:NPOV issues. Also the map cannot render both the individual states, and the various collectives (UN, EU, g8, v4 etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, let's discuss specific cases. As far as I know, the map accurately reflects the complexity of each country's position where conflicts exist, i.e. France went from blue, when President Hollande expressed his "solidarity with Israel," to green, when Laurent Fabius criticized the Israeli ground offensive and condemned the excess civilian casualties. Conversely, Egypt and South Africa went from red to green as their position evolved. As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxon countries (blue) have refused to soften their pro-Israel stance, while the bulk of the Arab/Muslim world and Latin America maintain their traditional Third-Worldist, pro-Palestine position. None of this should be particularly surprising or controversial; and again, it's quite easy to cross-reference with Reactions to Operation Protective Edge. Albrecht (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies: I found the source of the confusion: some vandal switched the colours on the legend, so the map effectively would'v made no sense. It's fixed now. Thanks for spotting that it was, indeed, "full of errors." Albrecht (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who "created" this map? Seems like the essence of original research. Nice colors but seriously do not include. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an exception for WP:OR for images since they are not generally freely available, but imo that applies only to cases where the underlying facts are not in dispute. In this case there is a bunch of OR in the selection and evaluation of the facts themselves which makes this particular image verboten. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The map is based on Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, which is extensively cited. Are any facts actually in dispute? i.e. can we find at least a few cases where the map is not faithful to the international reactions as stated by the foreign ministries or heads of government? Albrecht (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the exception explicitly reads " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy" - What is the single source (WP:SYNTH!) providing the data for this image? An image based on the dozens and doezens of sources self selected by wikipedia editors is very clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)The map is the epitome of original research. Who created it and how exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Israeli.2FGaza_reactions_image to gain a wider consensus on this question. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I originally requested a map [where'd that talk section go?] for a clear and concise picture of world reaction at a glance, and was grateful for it's inclusion. Now I'm a bit PO'd. If it was inaccurate feel free to fix it! Naa, far easier to throw out someone else's work, disregard it rather than improve it- Jerk! Just pulling the map is the lazy way out. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's about whether it's consistent with policy. That's all. Don't take it personally. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. Why are we not abiding by Wikipedia conventions? The page should have debates over major items. This is a helpful page. Any map errors should be corrected, and then the newer page should be uploaded.Dogru144 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that such useful tools for an average reader whom might not want to digest entire article like 'flags' or 'maps' are dis-regarded and shunned. I've witnessed across Wikipedia they are so pointlessly suppressed. Puritans would have only text. This is the internet after all, how does the inclusion of a map or flag remove from an article? I find that such dismissal of someone's contribution, with no attempt to correct any inaccuracies, disgusting. I have a right to take it personally since it was my input that contributed to someone taking the time and effort to make it happen. When you do not collaborate on what is already included in an article it undermines the very power Wikipedia gives us. I find myself rather exhausted of the issue and it will be whatever you editors decide. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Logic and Reason in this article

By the very nature of the title "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict", this article is a sub-section of an even higher-echelon subject - "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", and as such there is potential, even just within 2014, for confusion, overlap and other information weaknesses because the title suggests that it should be separate from any Israel-West Bank conflict. In the other direction it contains potential for some logical sub-sets, such as Progress of November 2012 Ceasefire; Incidents of Minor Lasting Consequence (such as those on 28 February, 12 March, 14 March, and 11 June) and Operation Protective Edge (OPE). And on this level there is ample scope for confusion since there is a link between OPE and the earlier Operation Brother's Keeper (no Wiki article) which started in the West Bank, other Wiki articles such as " 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers", which were immediately preceded by the deaths of two Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank on 15 May and the publication three days before the kidnappings of an autopsy report corroborating eye-witness and video evidence) proving that one death was from live IDF fire.

As it stands there is a confusion regarding the cause-and-effect relationship between the West Bank "teenager" deaths on both sides, the arrest of Hamas leaders, Hamas rocket fire from Gaza, and the escalation into Operation Protective Edge Erictheenquirer (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer(Regarding your last two lines) I reckon reading the background from the very beginning will helps a bit with clarification of cause-and-effect relationships between the mentioned events. Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed as disruptive; moratorium on move discussions for three months. A move has just been closed less than twenty-four hours ago. Although consensus can change, seeking to immediately reverse it is disruptive. If people disagree with the outcome of an RM they can seek review at Wikipedia:Move review. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Operation Protective Edge – page was moved without consensus - previous two move requests were declined-this article is about the military operation. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• speedy close/oppose There was consensus although it was not an overwhelming one and it was evaluated by an uninvolved admin. A move request so soon again is disruptive a bit. Let it sit for a while before asking again. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WHERE?? I don't see it here on the TP - there were two previous ones and both resulted in no move! ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Move_request_1 Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

" The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, pretty clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza ... " - um, what? Looking back, someone re-activated a more or less closed discussion - the 2nd move request says NOT moved - this is a mess. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• support Concensus was reached, twice, not to move the page from 'Operation Protective Edge', so now it should be moved back to the agreed title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose and impose a RM moratorium on this article. The move requests above ran in parallel, and were simultaneously closed by User:Jenks24 in favor of the current title, with a clear consensus that it should be moved away from "Operation Protective Edge":

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict]. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict –

The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, pretty clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza –

 : No such user (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close/oppose First of all, the page was not moved against consensus. Secondly, it is advancing a particular POV to use one side's operation name as the title, especially when the operation's name is deliberately worded to advance a POV, in this case that the operation is defensive in nature.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Using one side's operation name is one side esspecially when it is a slanted name like protective edgy which implys they are invading defensively.--Youngdrake (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Weakly oppose I was very surprised that the page was moved because I could not see any consensus on it. I agree with HammerFilmFan that this is a mess. However, the new title is not too bad, and should not be confusing. At this point, back and forth moving of the name would only create more confusion. Can decide on the move later when things are more stable Kingsindian (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Support Although the discussion was closed, I would like to add my support for the move. For the reason given by the one who started the request and also because the previous operation - Operation Pillar of Defense - the article was titled after its name. --Midrashah (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties infobox

People keep adding Hamas's disinformation about 32 soldiers killed and 1 captured into the infobox. Hamas is known to wildly inflate the casualties numbers, both on their side (calling everybody, militants or civilians "palestinian") and on the Israeli side. Until there is more official information I think it's ok to mention hamas' claims, but it's wrong to use it as a primary information, or even to put it on par with the official IDF's announcements.WarKosign (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, do not try to delete the information by other users unless there is no reliable source. --Johorean Boy (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source ? All the sources I've seen so far are affiliated with hamas.WarKosign (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there's no place for Hamas's disinformation in Wikipedia. Flags-Chaser (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia should write the facts and not write Hamas' lies as truth. Hamas and Iranian PressTV are not a RS. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also no place for IDF and Zionist disinformation in Wikipedia. :)

My sources: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/20/372091/hamas-lunches-counter-attacks-on-israel/ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/21/world/hamas-says-israeli-soldier-captured-toll-bloody-gaza-fighting-surges/#.U80BAvmSyiY http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/21/Hamas-armed-wing-claims-capture-of-Israeli-soldier.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/21/world/hamas-says-israeli-soldier-captured-toll-bloody-gaza-fighting-surges/#.U80BAvmSyiY --Johorean Boy (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All the sources say that this is what hamas claims. None of them says as a fact that a soldier was captured or that there were 32 casualties.

There is a mention of the claim in the timeline, on June 20th. I believe that unapproved information does not belong in the infobox at all, but I could agree to have the official number followed by another one that hamas claims. Let's see what other users think. Meanwhile, please stop this edit war. WarKosign (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How can we compare the media of a Democratic state to the media of a terrorist group? in all the previous operations we specified only the official Israeli claim. Flags-Chaser (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The casualties numbers are in total mass. Nothing there is based on the source cited, nor the UN estimates, nor the IDF estimates. Nothing specify the time of each data, but even worst, it looks like even the sources provided are not cited correctly. Please, everyone must adhere to Wikipedia editorial policies. --Tritomex (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of disinformation in the box. For example Israel doesn't claim 130 militants killed. It says 160 terrorists killed SINCE ground operation. There have been at least 200 or so before the ground operation.

hamas claims that they killed more than 100 israeli not to mention other groups there must be three number mentioned one claimed by israel and one by hamas and one by UN iwill do that at the end of the war so zionist can keep lying but i will settle every thing at the end with reliable sources.Zaid almasri (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I remove hamas's claims about israeli casualties for now - the only reference was a site that contained no such information.

my friend you this website alqassam.ps is hamas official website and if you read arabic you will know that what you said above is completly wrong and intentially misleadingZaid almasri (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do people mention ITIC as asource although it has ties with the IDF and the american jewish congress and it doesnot have any representatives on the ground so they take israeli claims and repeat it, if you keep using it i might add my grandmother assesemnt since it has the same credibility as ITIC, i beleive that we should put the IDF claim,Hamas claim, and UN claim .....thats it check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIC .Zaid almasri (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli-based independent research group. Also, their figures differ from the IDF. The IDF has claimed 300 dead militants, while they counted 200. EkoGraf (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

it is linked to the IDF (check wiki) and it does not have any presence in gaza so based on what have they been giving their number, by the way i can bring tens of research group that give values different than theirs.

most of the 150 Palestinian captured were released so using this number is misleading (on purpose) and they are suspected militant and not militants , check the refference, the same thing happened in lebanon war were israel captured hundreds and after the war they released all except a handful who were militants.Zaid almasri (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas's Palestinian Health Ministry?

(Department of silly affairs) According to Moomima (talk), it is necessary to call the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza as "Hamas's Palestinian Health Ministry". This seems very dubious to me. Firstly, the phrase is incoherent, ambiguous (does it only treat Hamas members?) and awkward. Secondly, the justification given -- that Hamas is one of the belligerents, so it is important to specify this to "avoid bias" -- seems very unpersuasive to me.

Hamas is an organization and also the government in Gaza. One does not need to put "Hamas" before every institution inside Gaza. The Health Ministry is not fighting -- it is civil service/bureaucracy. If one needs to put "Hamas" before such entities, God only knows where it will end. I fail to understand the insistence on this. Kingsindian (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsindian (talk) that putting "Hamas" before every institution in Gaza may be inappropriate. However, in this situation, in which casualty statistics are compared from various sources, I feel that it's relevant to make clear to the reader what the source of said statistics are. United Nations is clear, Israel Defense Forces is also clear (as affiliating with Israel), while "Palestinian Health Ministry" may be misleading, as it doesn't make it clear that they are a part of Hamas's government. It is especially important to site Hamas here because they are belligerents in the conflict. To make my point, say the Israel Defense Forces where simply called "Defense Forces" by Israel, I would also argue that it should be referred to as "Israel's Defense Forces" or something along those lines. The exact wording isn't important to me, what is important is that both Israel and Hamas are clearly understood to be the source of the information. Moomima (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Palestinian Ministry of Health is the Ministry of Health for the State of Palestine. The notion that everything in Gaza = Hamas is fine as a simplification for public consumption as part of Israel's PR efforts but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Ashraf Al-Qedra "Gaza Health Ministry spokesman" is a doctor at Al-Shifa Hospital, the largest hospital in the Gaza Strip. He is spokesman for the Ministry of Health for the State of Palestine in Gaza. That is who he speaks on behalf of. The causality figures should simply say where statistics come from no matter whether that is the the IDF, B'Tselem, MoH SoP, UN or any other organization. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All newspaper sources either refer to it as the "Palestinian Health Ministry", or Gaza's Health Ministry. I think the term Gaza's Health Ministry (as used in this BBC article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28431945) should be good enough. Elsewhere in the article, this seems to be the preferred phrase, or "Gaza Health Ministry". I have added a wiki link to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" to the phrase in the table, and in the lead. I don't think there is much chance of it being misleading, as there are multiple references elsewhere to Hamas control of Gaza, including in the lead and background section. If you are unhappy with this, we can discuss more. Kingsindian (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Specifically in the case of casualties, I agree with Moomina for the same reasons. Moreover, Gaza's administration (Hamas) is separate from the West Bank's administration (Fatah) in practice, even though they have recently declared a union government. So, in practice what's called Gaza Health Ministry has been found by Hamas and called that way by Hamas, simply accepted by the same nomination in the media. So, even though it's ok to normally call it that way...when comparing conflicting number of casualties by parties or subdivisions of those perties involved in the conlict...in the name of neutrality and balance, I think it's important to outline, who are the sources: UN is known, Israel's Defence Forces, Hamas' Health Ministry...Furthermore, those institutions such as the Gaza something Ministries, do not represent the people of Gaza..as there's no true democracy or freedom in Gaza. They are highly motivated by Hamas' ideologies, founded by Hamas...This is my point...Again wording could be improved, but I think, the fact that it belongs to Hamas or that it represent Hamas' ideology should somehow be expressed by proper wording at least in this specific case of casualties. --Universal Life (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Health Ministry was not founded by Hamas, see establishment of Palestinian Health Ministry. Secondly, I am not sympathetic to this kind of vague reasoning that they are "motivated by Hamas's ideology" or "Gaza is not a democracy". That may be true, but ideology is irrelevant to the naming of the source. One does not call any Israeli source "Likud's whatever". I think it is sufficient to name it "Gaza's Health Ministry" and wikilink to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" for anyone who is interested further in the source. If you have any suggestions for the wording, please state them explicitly, so we can evaluate them. Kingsindian (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether this issue is resolved or not, it seems clear to me that the way in which sources seem to usually put this is 'Gaza's Health Ministry' or something like that. That we use that wording is the right way to go. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source

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

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

RussiaToday is by its own admission a propaganda tool of the Russian government. It's widely known for its pro-Russian bias, not just cultural as one might levy against sources like CNN or other such Western outlets, but specifically pro-Russian government. Instead of going into the many examples, I think the proof is in the pudding here in the light of all the reporters that have left the network as of late due to its unbriddled propaganda in the Ukraine conflict. Other than that I think the Wikipedia article's "criticism" section highlights the problems very well. Eik Corell (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Presstv is also a terrible source, I suggest removing it

RT isn't a particularly great source by any means, but I believe that consensus Wikipedia policy on multiple articles is that it can be cited so long as the information is particularly linked to them- Arguing at RT.com, journalist Tom Thompson stated etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a section devoted to the comments section of a news article?

In the section under social media, it talks about how comments on the website Walla! praised the killing of the Palestinian children on the beach. Is this really necessary? It should be common knowledge that the comment section of any website will have trolls and offensive comments no matter what the issue is. There's probably an infinite number of examples we could use of these kinds of posts for both sides of this conflict, so why have this specific example in here? Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that since an article by Gideon Levy in Haaretz mentioned the Walla! incident, it is notable. Kingsindian (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But like I said, there's an infinite number of examples from both sides. In the comments section of news articles about an Israeli being killed, I've seen many people say things such as praising Hitler and calling for another Holocaust. It's not more noteworthy or informative just because it was mentioned in an article. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's undue weight, and it shouldn't be included. We've seen pretty horrible things said about this conflict by various online trolls on various comment sections all over the place. There's zero reason to give this such space. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Walla! site cites social media reactions, just as other things in that section do. What the problem?Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Posting a hateful comment on a blog anonymously is quite different than actual social media where people post images, use their own names, etc. I could add quite a bit of material on nasty things, say, that anonymous people claiming to be Palestinians have posted on 4chan and tumblr I guess, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic either.

Are you saying people can't make up identities on social media? It doesn't take much to take a photo from Google and come up with a fake name. Trolls from social media/comments sections of news articles are hardly noteworthy and giving them press on such a huge site like Wikipedia is honestly just feeding them. Also, just because a news site comments section has social media integration doesn't automatically make what is said in the comment section a social media reaction. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the above is policy-based but expresses only distaste for the content regarding Israeli social media.

Well, I posted it because I saw the following unchallenged note in the social media section:

Similarly, according to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinians in Hebron cheered as Gazan rockets were fired at Tel Aviv. People reportedly stood at rooftops chanting "Allah Akbar" at the sight.[240]

(a)Shouting one's schadenfreude from rooftops is, technically, not engaging in 'social media', neither is the Sderot bit above it (in Israel this is called slangily 'Sderot cinema'). Social media are electronic. However, rather than complain, I adduced an actual bit of evidence of what one side's social media is revealing, impeccably sourced. Now, none of the objectors noted this anomaly, but instead, complain that it's unseemly or undue or whatever to cite RS on what happens in Israel's social media. No objection to the anomalous entries on Sderot or Arab rooftops in Hebron, neither of which reports social media, but nervous nelly moves to remove the one piece of data that fits the criteria of the section. I see a decidedly POV leg being flashed in this objection. This kind of stuff is at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

In the Gaza Strip, families of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel celebrated the kidnapping by handing out sweets to passersby from a protest tent that had been erected to express solidarity.[209][210] Gazan Palestinians also released a song on social networks mocking the kidnappings, and called for additional abductions.[211] A Palestinian group mounted a video on YouTube parodying the abduction, in a fictional scenario featuring an "Abu Saqer el Khalili Brigades, the Kick Ass Branch", apparently taking the event to be a Israeli plot with Arab complicity while mocking Islamic extremism.[212]

And no one objects, because it's well documented. But of course what's acceptable in reporting Palestinian pathologies, is not acceptable if the pathology is Israeli.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating things that happen socially with social media. If a news site reports on something that happened socially, that is not social media. That is a news report. However, if a journalist reports something by using social media, that is much more credible and noteworthy than if, for a lack of a better word, "a nobody" from social media does something. Just because Gideon Levy mentions something that was said in a comments section of a news report does not give what was said any more validity in it's importance over equally terrible things that he did not report by the other side, of which there are many examples. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, which you misconstrue, while sidestepping the gravamen of my point, i.e., what is being objected to is something that perfectly fits WP:RS and the content of the section. Other things there do not meet the second criterion, and the difference is, the thing you want removed reflects as badly on some vein of Israeli popular opinion as the hurrahs from rooftops reflects badly on Palestinian popular opinion. The balance is fair.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to another article and complaining about that other article is both childish and irrelevant. It's the argument equivalent of yelling 'Squirrel!'

And the central issue remains: What we have here is a bunch of information given undue weight that isn't well-sourced and is basically irrelevant. A side reference made in the middle of an opinion post that isn't even freely availible for viewing isn't that much of a a source. And the reader has no reason to care about non-notable Israeli trolls posting racist anti-Arabic comments, non-notable Palestinian trolls posting Nazi Germany based memes as they love to do, non-notable American trolls mocking both sides with terrible Photoshops, etc posted on various troll-heavy websites such as 4chan, tumblr, comment sections, etc.

This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the wall of a men's room. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I read 'a bunch of information given undue weight that isn't well-sourced and is basically irrelevant', which shows ignorance of policy, unfamiliarity with I/P RS criteria, and an inability to see that what is objected to fits the section theme better than several other items there no one objects to.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The information has been selected by a notable Israeli journalist, perhaps Israel's most notable journalist, and published by a reliable secondary source. That is why having this specific example in here is consistent with policy. Why he selected those particular comments out of the large set of comments is not our concern. Our role is to reflect reliable sources without whining about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What he reported is completely irrelevant. Just because he says something does not mean it's automatically important enough that it needs to be on Wikipedia. What trolls say on a comments section of a news site is not noteworthy or newsworthy, especially when equally bad things are said on the other side and it is not on Wikipedia. Do anti-Semitic things said in the comment sections of news sites not exist because they aren't constantly reported on by journalists? Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you want it removed because you think it makes Israelis look bad ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed because it's completely irrelevant. The comments section of a news article isn't important enough to be on Wikipedia. Comments sections of any issue will have trolls and offensive comments. If it's about Obama, it will have racist comments about black people. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about Obama. If it's about gay people, it will have homophobic comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about gay rights. If it's about illegal immigration, it will have anti-Mexican comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about illegal immigration. If it's about Israel, it will have anti-Semitic comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about Israel. None of those are relevant or important enough to warrant being on Wikipedia. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument for removal doesn't make sense and it isn't consistent with policy. Firstly, we can't dismiss a source written by a notable Israeli journalist published by a reliable source as "completely irrelevant". Secondly, it clearly is noteworthy and newsworthy because a notable Israeli journalist wrote about it and it was published by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is built from these things. We cannot sample the comments made by readers. Reliable secondary sources have to do it for us. We reflect those reliable sources. There may be other sources out there that have sampled comments and written about ones that they regarded as important in some respect. If the reports make Israelis or Palestinians or anyone else look bad or look good in someone's eyes, it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is to stop someone from using the comments section itself as a source? Just because a notable person cites it, does not mean that it suddenly becomes important enough that it has to be on Wikipedia. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What stops us is the WP:V policy, "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources", and the fact that we are not reliable sources. Nothing has to be on Wikipedia. In this case there are policy based reasons to include it. There haven't been policy based reasons to exclude it, yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the objections so far has been argued on policy grounds, other than WP:Undue which is not an heteronym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Airlines stop flights section again

So the whole section on "Airlines Stop Flights" is WP:UNDUE and does not reflect WP:SS - there should be maybe a few sentences to reflect the mass change in flights from one airport to the other or overall mass flight cancellations, but the way all of this is listed is atrocious, and just plain looks bad. Hires an editor (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally. Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What was once a reasonably sized section seems to have been bloated up for little reason, and it needs to be changed. Indeed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I question the relationship of the "Airlines Stop Flights" section in an article titled "Israel-Gaza" conflict, it isn't strictly necessary or related. This is discussing the conflict, not other situations. Yes it is related, but if everything related was contained in this article, it would be 50+ pages long. Please comment on the validity of even having this section, let alone what it has become. Jab843 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire Agreement Section/Sub-Section to be included?

I seems that it would be advantageous to include a subsection on the ceasefire agreements that have happened thus far in the conflict. However, I don't want to add extra info to an article that already contains a fair about of unnecessary sections/content. Please express your ideas. Jab843 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The removal of "claim" under Casualties and Losses from Hamas and Israel figures

After re-reading the site, it seems odd to me that the under the Casualties and Losses section in the infobox, Israel's and Hamas' number are followed by the word claim while none of the other agencies are subject to this lack of neutrality. This seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. Either all of the organizations have the word claim following their name, or none of them have that statement. Could someone please justify otherwise if I am missing something. Jab843 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Teen Kidnappings Was From 'Lone Cell'

Right now, we have it in the article that: Israeli police officials later admitted that the kidnappings did not occur on the orders of, or with the knowledge of the Hamas leadership and that the crime was the action of a "lone cell". 1 2

Other than that I want to get the references formatted differently in this article, I think this is just fine. Does anyone feel that the 'Lone Cell' revelation should be worded differently? Expanded into more words? Are there any sources that dispute all this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing is I might tweak it to: Israeli police officials later admitted that the kidnappings neither occurred on the orders of the Hamas leadership nor with the leadership's knowledge, with the crime being the action of a Hamas-connected "lone cell". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait for an actual confirmation from Israel instead of hearsay. A bunch of unknown and unrelated terrorists groups have claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, but have never given proof of doing it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel Police Foreign Press Spokesperson was quoted in a tweet by BBCs Jon Donnison - 'Israeli police MickeyRosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens def lone cell, hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership' 1/2 12:28 PM - 25 Jul 2014 Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't note this while rewriting the section of the background where it fits in, but one can also glance there at a possible context and reformulation. This is news only in so far as an official spokesman is now saying what has been bruited about among Israeli journalists for well over a month, even before the three teenagers were discovered. It could not be reported because of a gag order. It was known as soon as the evidence from the burnt car went through laboratory tests, showing DNA, much blood from the boys, and several shells.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no confirmation by the Micky Rosenfeld himself. It should be noted that this is based solely on the BBC reporters word. People were asking for information, and this is what he says: "For those asking, I stick by 100% tweets regarding comments made to me by Israeli police spokes Mickey Rosenfeld. He said it. Period." He deleted his original post that made the claim as well. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Still no confirmation by Micky Rosenfeld, and no other major news site seems to be reporting it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA rockets

i.am.a.qwerty (talk) is against the inclusion of a quote from UNRWA spokesperson mentioned in the "Daily Beast" article here[10], saying that the transfer of rockets to local authorities is "According to longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide". The reason given is that it is giving undue weight to the UN. I do not see why an explanation of the standard operating procedure is seen as given undue weight to the UN, when the UNRWA spokesperson himself gave the statement in answer to the allegations against UNRWA. Kingsindian (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the quote. This is not giving undue weight to the United Nations. Anti-UN sentiments should not cloud edits here.Dogru144 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including a short quote that would provide coherence to the article. But to put a lengthy quote, naming the spokesperson and their agency all to provide their side of the story is clearly undue. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty Thanks. The version right now seems to meet your requirements, I believe. If there are any issues, let me know. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Egypt be added to the list of combatants/casualties?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550797,00.html

Egypt's army said Sunday it has destroyed 13 more tunnels connecting the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, taking to 1,639 the overall number it has laid waste to.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas, which is the main power in Gaza, reportedly uses the tunnels to smuggle arms, food and money into the blockaded coastal enclave.

Cairo also accuses of Hamas of being involved in militant attacks inside Egypt, which have multiplied since Morsi was toppled.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550220,00.html

Possible Gaza rockets hit Egypt, highlighting growing tensions between Egypt and terrorists active in Sinai and Gaza.

Four children were killed on Saturday in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula when a mortar round hit their home, in an apparent attack by militants targeting soldiers, security officials said.

The attack took place in the northern Sinai town of El-Joura, believed to be a bastion of Islamist militants who have killed scores of policemen and soldiers over the past year.

Soldiers and police had been combing the area a day after militants shot dead two senior army and police officers as they were driving home. Four people were wounded in the blast, the officials said, adding that the children were all under 15 years old.

Meanwhile Saturday, soldiers killed 12 suspected militants and arrested 11 others in the northern Sinai, according to a statement on the official Facebook page of military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammed Samir. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Egypt vigorously supports Israel in the war, like the United States, and has arrested or shot Hamas militants in separate operations against Bedouins before this war, but it is not a legal belligerent. The United States arguably is a tacit belligerent, in so far as Israel can tap the latter's stockpiles of arms and weaponry in Israel if needed, but that is not relevant since it is an hypothetical situation.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Protests in Israel and West Bank

I have created a new section "Protests in Israel and West Bank". I don't know how much weight it should be given, but I've put in all I know about the topic. Kingsindian (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

War ?

It's more appropriate to call this a war, rather that a conflict. What do you think?--Ezzex (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, wars are largely called that after a long time of fighting. This event is a conflict that may be ended with a ceasefire sometime soon. I highly doubt Israel's going to stop otherwise, and I also doubt Israel will actually attempt to fully defeat Hamas and take the Strip in this conflict. Anyway, I'm not sure that the media calls it a war yet, that's really what convinces editors to change the article title.--ɱ (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it a war, and neither group has formally declared war (which may not be technically possible since they do not have diplomatic recognition) (Gaza/Palstine's as an unrecognized state in general may also cause difficulty in using that definition) Also since Hamas is a party not a country itself also makes that complicated. Many of the terms of diplomacy and war are going to be tough to apply correctly due to non-state actors, recognition etc. Similar problems occur in other conflicts elsewhere - the terminology was set up to describe WWI, WWII, and the prior historical wars, not this type of thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As this conflict resembles the Gaza War of 2007-2008 maybe we can call it Second Gaza War Helliko (talk) 2:49 pm, Today (UTC−4)

No, that's probably considered original research. Articles are named by their common name; what other sources call them; not what we want to call them.--ɱ (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been very few declared of war since 1945. --Ezzex (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why was the title changed from "Operation Protective Edge" ?

There were two move requests, and both were declined.

Then suddenly I see this title, and in the history Jenks24 writes about requested move and refers to the talk page. Where is the requested move that was accepted ?

Generally I don't think the current title is biased in any way, but it's too general - since hamas has the declared goal of destroying israel and killing everbody in it, they are in perpetual state of conflict through 2014, even when they are not acting on it. This article is more specific - it's about acts of violence that hamas committed in june 2014 and how israel retaliated.

WarKosign (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the crap I somehow added to the page - no idea how it happened, I thought I only edited the 'war?' section. WarKosign (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested the Admin to move it back - this article is about the military operation - aka 'Operation Citadel' and so on. Another article about the wider-political connotations of any war can be written, if need be. Then some of the information on this article could be moved off here and over to it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not an IDF propaganda site. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Are the articles on Operation Barbarossa, the Battle of Issus, Operation Citadel somehow "biased"? Sooner or later someone will re-create an article that deals strictly with the military operation, which can focus more on the technical details of warfare and minimize the politics behind the conflict. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly interview should be used

Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, has been interviewed on the background, and raises several points not commonly seen in newspaper reportage, though I have mentioned the points off the cuff here. The analysis is of the 'realist school'. Note also as possibly worthy of conclusion his judgement that the crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank had nothing to do with its proclaimed aim, since it was known to the government that the children were dead. Hamas and the battle for Gaza. The interviewee is not identifiably Pro-Palestinian, but an analyst of the American realist school.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Any way to get a transcription of this? Liable for 'link-rot.' HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That Graph

So, in the "Violations of the truce" section, I think it's fair to say that both sides have violated the truce. How could anyone deny that? But the problem is the graph showing the Palestinian violations - the way this is presented is WP:UNDUE. It makes these violations seem outsized, and much more important or a larger contributing factor...in addition, it has been removed several times, which I believe should be subject to arbitration remedies. And it's part of why I note it here. I believe that the graph should be removed and not brought back. Hires an editor (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're quite correct. There is a graph in Pollock's article and details related to Israeli violations in the sources cited above, but I don't know anything about copyright on these matters, or how to create a variation on one to upload in order to maintain discursive parity. I think, if no Palestinian graph can be found that that eye-catching blob should be taken out and replaced with the same kind of textual explanation we have for the Palestinians. Can anyone manage to sort this out?Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and this should be obvious to any competent editor in WP:ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The graph doesn't even work properly, and it's primary sourced. Either someone should make a functional graph showing the +100 Israeli airstrikes in the month preceding the war. Or it should go. --Sloane (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research based on Shabak data

This content needs to be removed or have its source replaced so that it supports the statement. See User_talk:Gever_tov and my edit summary for my failed attempt to enforce policy here. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clever, very clever

Incrementally, the article changed from one on an operation extending to three weeks, with a background section, into an article without (a) narrative of the events over the 3 weeks of conflict (b) without the November 2012 ceasefire background and (c)without the April background section and instead (d) we have magnificent sections on (a) the Costs to the Israeli economy and (b) Airport disruption which occurred for 2 days over a 21 day period. Obviously the major concern of editors is to write an article about the difficulties tourists are experiencing in going on holidays to Israel. Well done, hats off.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Tourism is indeed important. Seriously though, this article needs a major rewrite, but I think some sort of consensus should be reached here before removal of a significant amount of content. I for one, think that it either needs to be broken up into other articles, or just removed from the current article. If we come to an agreement as to what is important relating to what Wikipedia stands for as opposed to a lumping together of a bit of this and a bit of that so that people's own biases are highlighted, it would be very helpful. Comments are appreciated! Jab843 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If tourism is important, then all background articles mention that Gaza since 2007 has been a gulag/fenced in camp where no one can get in or out without exceptional ties or luck. If you mean the right to visit Israel was interrupted for a day or two is important, then obviously the right of Gazans to fish in their own territorial waters, re-use their international airport which Israel has never failed to bomb to smithereens, exploit that 25% of their richest land banned from use by Israeli border shooters, the right of people like myself to revisit it, or of Palestinian Fulbright scholars to go to the US instead of being blocked as linked to terrorists, because they are Gazan, or the fact that the total of Israeli bombs on the area in 2006 exceeded the whole total of lamppost rockets shot into the Negev desert in the 5 preceding years....The maximum coverage for the disturbance at airports in an article like this which has, unlike its predecessors, eviscerated all narratives of the war and its devastation, is one line. I.e.

Hamas rocketry one two occasions fell close to Israel's Ben-Gurion airport, interrupting services for two days.

Anything longer than that contextually is suggesting that Israel's economic returns for a few days is more important that several thousand tons of bombs destroying a large part of the infrastructure of the contiguous territory which both Israel and Egypt deny any form of economic development, trade, and is, frankly, obscenely WP:Undue. The crap section on this can be removed to the useless page created on what is, per wikipedia, not-notable, to register it.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, sorry I thought it was evident that I was being sarcastic in my opening sentence when I followed it up with seriously.... I agree, this section is irrelevant and should be re/moved. Jab843 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if other editors concur, that it should be removed, on the several grounds noted.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur this gives undue weight to the plight of israeli tourists. Delete it. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion of leaving the redirect to the new article, but removing everything else. Agreed? Jab843 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Intro currently appears written from a pro-Israeli apologist point of view

The intro begins with an assertion that the current conflict began 'with the breakdown of talks in May.' This is a specious way of dating the beginning of the conflict, as the "conflict" here indicates the period of time when people have been killed. The real beginning of the conflict appears to be the kidnappings of the three Israeli teenagers, which promoted an Israeli military search, which resulted in several Palestinian deaths, and then the murders of the three Israeli teenagers appear to have been retaliatory for the Palestinian deaths. - Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Or was the real beginning the Beitunia killings that preceded the kidnappings of the the Israeli teenagers ? Or was it when the international community welcomed the Palestinian unity government ? Who knows, but the killing of the 3 Israelis wasn't in response to killings of Palestinians by the IDF during Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank because they were almost certainly shot the same day they were abducted, probably during the emergency call to the police.[11][12] It's probably going to be difficult to find consensus on "the real beginning" as it probably varies somewhat from source to source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hamas-Fatah April 2014 accord is the direct antecedent. A few minutes after it was signed

an Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at a motorcycle in Beit Lahiya. The “target” was not hit. In its stead, seven passers-by were injured.

This exactly repeats what happened in early 2011 when Abu Mazan declared he would go to Gaza and sign a unity agreement with Hamas. Almost immediately

the IDF killed two Hamas activists in Gaza, in an action authorized by the highest levels – the minister of defense and the IDF chief of staff. The killing was portrayed as a response to the launching of a single Qassam rocket, which hit no one, but some, like Yedioth’s Alex Fishman, understood that this had been a “premeditated escalation” by Israel. The following day, March 17, Netanyahu came “full circle”, clarifying to those who had not yet understood: Palestinian unity is a red line, as far as Israel is concerned.

The parallels are made by Israelis like Idan Landau and Alex Fishman, to name a few. It's not liked by the Western commentariat, because they don't use a stop-watch or clock the succession of events. On each occasion, a declaration by Palestinians of Hamas-PNA unity is met by an incident that leads to an escalation which ends up in a war waged to 'stop rockets from Hamas terrorists from striking Israel'. It is one analytic perspective of many, and should be attributed.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as that let to escalation and finished in the Pillar of Defence operation, so too

Attempts to use RS which look into the background, like the Guardian background piece, seem to get shot down. It's not that we don't have sources on the nexus of past and present. It's that attempts to write from these sources are subject to sniping, and snipping to destabilize them. The solution, as in the background section above is to write the section on events from 2005 to 2012 as they are covered by, and linked in, articles dealing in this war's background, and once consensus, which should be rapid, is gained, to stick it on the page. That translates as, any disturbance of the section is subject to automatic revert because it violates a talk page consensus. So, if people want a decent neutral additional background section, one para, they can just add their comments and suggestions to that section.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to mention antecedents, but it's also important not to confuse the beginning of major hostilities which is the current "conflict," and major international news event for about two months running now. The current conflict clearly begins with the kidnappings of the three teenagers, probably motivated by the Beitunia killings of late June. -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping?

Note also a little confusion created by the IDF in the idea of the three youths had been "kidnapped." Apparently they kept the boys' emergency call embargoed and news of their murders suppressed. It could be argued that there was actually no "kidnapping," since the youths were promptly murdered, and were likely never intended to be held hostage. -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 21:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If a person enters a store with a gun to rob the cash register, he is kidnapping the teller even if it is for a brief period of time. Kidnapping has been defined this way in almost all countries and through most periods of time, you can not change the definition to suit your views. This is wikipedia, we are a site to host the information, we do not decide on caselaw or otherwise. Jab843 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there probably need to be some rewrites in a number of articles. J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza" provides a useful overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping is still kidnapping even if the perpetrators murder the victims after X amount of time, regardless of whatever X is. To claim otherwise is to completely bungle the meaning of the word "kidnapping". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)