Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters

Template tags

POV, notability, and context tags are necessary until more information is added, if this is even a notable topic in and of itself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don´t like to "spin" out articles like this, but this probably should remain an independent article. Simply because there are so many school shelters that have been attacked, that I, for one, has a problem with keeping them apart. And tthere are lots and lots of sources, indeed it looks as if this is the mail think the international media are writing about.

The article needs a *lot* of work, though. For starters: the table headings "First Attack", "Second Attack" etc, are not very instructive. Why not replace it with the name of the school? And the table could/should be ordered after the date. Huldra (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I started early and I don't know school names. So. I prefer call them like this. Maybe we shall have to add more rows for the table!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would really prefer that the first item on each row was the date. And, according to the Guardian article[1],it seems the Jabalia school is called both a Elementary A&B Girls' School and Abu Hussein UN school. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But I understood it was Abu Hussein school.(source) Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

eeeek, yeh, possibly. I assume the best way to confirm this is to link it to the UN web-sites notifications about the attacks. (But, as it is, I am not going to edit this article much presently: my computer just broke down, I´m now on my reserve computer (from the stone-age, approximately) which more or less breaks down each time I get too many cookies, or try to look at news-sites. So, until my new computer arrives, I´ll keep editing, using mostly "non-heavy" external sites), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many POV issues

I have a long huge list of POV issues with this page, besides for the fact that I dont think it should even exsist. (1) When is the Israeli side that they say PIJ hit one of the schools? (2) Especially based on #1 it shouldnt be called "Israel raids" it should be called something like "2014 UNRWA school shelter incidents." (3)It should have a section devoted to how one 3 separate occasions the UNRWA has found rockets stored in their schools. There are many more issues but those are the biggest ones. - Galatz (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but for every one of those 3 school-cases: A: the schools were NOT in use, B: UNRWA themselves found it, and reported it. In other words, I cannot see that it is very relevant to this article. Israel has made several conflicting statements about the Jabalya killings, which at least to me indicate some confusion Huldra (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is confusion, its a current event that is confusing. It definitely needs to be shown as what the other side says. Thats what NPOV is, showing both sides. And its extremely relevant because it shows Hams is abusing these schools - Galatz (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That someone use empty abandoned houses is a completely different issue from using buildings filled with thousands of civilians. We should not confuse the two. (Last news: 7 schools have been attacked, not 6). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you figure? If you abuse one what stops you from abusing another? Firing rockets from the "general vicinity" of the school is just as big of an issue. It shows tendency to abuse UNRWA schools for their own gain, which is a huge violation of international law. Hamas not Israel puts the lives of those in danger. Should the IDF not be allowed to shoot back at someone firing at them? Hamas clearly has blame as well and the article should reflect that - Galatz (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you claim there is neutral documents about armaments in the schools, you can input these information. why you debate here?!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Galatz; if you want to discuss politicks or preach, please go somewhere else. Here we go with the sources. I do not know of all the 6 (7?) attacks, but I have read quite a bit about the Jabalia strike, and a little less about the Beit Hanoun strike. The report from the eye-witnesses *all* say that there was no fireing from the schools, or nearby. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A NPOV title is against the rules of WP you said to fix the article so I am. Do not move it back - Galatz (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is your POV that the title is NPOV. You broke the 1RR rule: move the article back, please, or I will have to report you. Huldra (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No it is not my opinion. The entire article from the title to the contents was very one sided showing on what Israel was doing. No mention of a possibility that Hamas hit the school. No mention of IDF returning fire. Just because the IDF says it doesn't make it true, just like how just because Hamas says it doesn't make it true. Thats why we show both sides. Additionally the article needed a lot more background info, so thats all been added. Also anything that was clearly NPOV I changed to make neutral. - Galatz (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I put back the POV tag. User Wickey-nl changed the description of Schools for the list back to attacks. This is a very POV on the incidents. The word attack implies that it wasn't retaliation. It also ignores the fact that Hamas COULD have hit some of the schools, which is under investigation by the UN. - Galatz (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014‎

There was no reactions to this in the past 24 hours, so I have taken the iniative to change it back. I have left the POV tag up there though because there are a ton of accusations against Israel that are not substantiated by sources. - Galatz (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Schools 1, 2 and 5

I have stated in the article my concern with whats shown as #2. The one source used makes no mention of it being a UNRWA school. Also the person was near his house in the vicinity of the school. It doesn't tie him to being injured from a shell hitting the school. I am sure there wasn't just one round shot so unless there is a RS that can directly tie this I think that school should be removed.

Schools 1 & 5 have no information whatsoever on them. Who says these incidents occurred? - Galatz (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I see both 6 and 7 mentioned as the number of attacks. but we really should have a link to the relevant official UNWRA statement for each. Huldra (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Right now without any RS stated any attack occurred with a date and place the article is extremely empty. If an RS cannot be found or any official statement I propose removing 1,2&5 from the chart. Change the list to being by the schools, and add maybe a note in the text somewhere that states a total of 6 schools were hit, but these are the ones that caused damage and injuries - Galatz (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has really been done about these. As I mentioned 5 days ago I propose changing the chart and set up to remove these. Are there any objections? If you object please fill them in. - Galatz (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

The most obvious question about the background is not addressed at all: why on earth are so many people living in these schools? We need a section on how Israel have told people to vacate their homes in certain areas, and how the numbers of internally displaced people have sky-rocketed as a result, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point. I added a bit on roof knocking, but I think it should still be expanded more. Probably something that shows how many homes have been destroyed forcing them to move out of their homes. Also possibly something about people being displaced in general, which I think is closer to 400k, and how only 200k are in UN facilities, others are with friends or family. - Galatz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about the UNWRA schools, lets try to limit it to that, we could perhaps use the data in the UNWRA emergency reports. It gives the number of people it is sheltering:

• 27 July 2014: 167,269 + in 83 UNWRA schools
• 28 July 2014: 170,461+ in 82 UNWRA schools
• 29 July 2014: 182,604+ in 82 UNWRA schools
• 30 July 2014: 200,000+ in 85 UNWRA schools
• 01 August 2014: 225,178 in 86 shelters

Also, we need a section about how the UNWRA repeatedly warned Israel that there were civilians in these schools (In connection with Jabalia Israel were told 17 times) . Oh, and The Reuter source you brought about the third incident were rockets have been found at a school (though a better source than the last one), still it does not mention that this school also was vacant at the time. It was; the UN spokespeople have explicitly stated that. Huldra (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think since its background the others displaced set the picture well. I think it kind of allows people to understand the situation. There is the tag on the top about how it doesn't provide context to people unfamiliar, so this would address that concern.

I actually haven't seen anything that states the 3rd school is vacant, all I saw was that it was a 3rd instance. But if you have something then throw it in.

I agree that the 17 warnings should be mentioned. Its shows the UN's stance on the situation when Israel's is shown as returning fire. Its a good addition, i'll look for some stuff. - Galatz (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just heard an interview (on BBC world service) a day or two ago, with a UN spokesman. They were pressed strongly about the rockets found in the schools, and what they had done with them. The UN spokesman was very clear about A: the rockets were not turned over to Hamas, instead the UN´s own experts were set to demolish them B: all the 3 schools had been vacated by the UNWRA at the time. Huldra (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does this sentence mean:"During the Gaza War, Israel struck at least two schools in Beit Lahiya (Asma Elementary School) and Jabalia." Beit Lahhiya is the town and then the school name, but whats the deal with Jabalia? Why are these two showing inconsistent. Also I think this school name is showing different here than on the wikilinked article. They should probably be a bit more consistent. Or am I missing something? - Galatz (talk) 19:24, 1 August 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: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools → 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents – The name of the article implies a one sided assault on UNRWA schools. However there is background information that expands beyond schools. Also this is not a one sided attack. There are claims of Hamas hitting their own schools. Additionally retaliation for rocket fire is not considered a raid. Everything about this title suggests a POV, moving to a generic incidents page. Galatz (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I´m not too fond of the word "raid", the present title is more representative of what is going on. In all the case I have read, all eye witnesses have said there were no attacks coming from the area. Huldra (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose something like "Israel and UNRWA Facilities - 2014" since it doesn't show a one sided attack. It deals with the same context without showing unnecessary aggression, which raid in this instance does. - Galatz (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is not suitable. UNRWA schools are raided according to sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What RS states this? Can you give examples? - Galatz (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The name is already one sided now, since as far as I can see 'Israeli attacks ...' or 'Israeli shelling ... ' instead of the current 'Israeli raids ...' would be a better reflection of neutral sources, and equally importantly of the subject matter. Imc (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, currently, the title is not a neutral enough already. I agree IMc's views. See UNRWA stement [2] its considered as shelling. Also, I must say that to find this move request one-sided. Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for the aforementioned reasons. The current title is not perfect, and as User:Imc stated "Israeli attacks..." or "Israeli shelling..." may reflect the subject matter more accurately, but the proposed title is unacceptable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about the school Hamas could have hit? Why is that in an article about "Israeli shelling"? - Galatz (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That Israel says Hamas could have hit? The fact that Israel has leveled an allegation, which has been rejected by the UNRWA, does not negate the fact that Israel has still shelled UNRWA schools. And even if one accepts the IDF's account of the 24 July shelling as truth, an IDF mortar still landed in a courtyard of the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun, linking Israel to that incident and making the incident worthy of inclusion in an article titled "Israeli shelling..." or "Israeli raids...".--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support This clearly a a pov title meant to WP:POVPUSH one sided view on those incidents.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 7 August 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.

Lead changes

The change to the lead of "2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools was six attacks on UNRWA facilities in Gaza Strip during 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict by Israel Defence Forces." is extremely POV. Again its saying Israel attacked, but is a POV, Israel claims they were returning fire on some and on others were Hamas. The lead should summarize the facts not state a POV. Additionally in that same vain saying it was done by the IDF is also misleading because the UN is still investigating if it could be Palestinians that fired the rockets. The red and official UNRWA statement also says 6th time struck, not 6th time by Israel - Galatz (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I accept last part of your comment. But, present evidences, say that IDF attacked the facilities no other sides. You can add information about <returning fire> and <stuck armaments>, but we cant do wikipedia:or or changing information of UNRWA.org until we find more neutral sources.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your change is good this way. I had put a source in the main part of the article under the details of that attack, so I don't think its needed in the lead, since the lead is pretty NPOV now. Thanks - Galatz (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo

The only photo on the page is 6 years old. Can we update this to one from this year? - Galatz (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That photo is for background topic. It's good if you have new photos of the current war to add to the article. In the previous war, IDF used white phosphorus bombs and Dense Inert Metal Explosive. But in the current war, IDF is using normal weapons (no WMD). Pictures can help audiences to compare Israel military tactics to the case.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Page vandalism

This is the second day in a row I have come to the page and found it vandalized by Wickey-nl. This is unacceptable. Stuff was added to the page based on conversation in the talk page and they just decide to come in and remove it all without coming here. They also are moving tags from the top of the page that are addressed in here but not coming in here to look at them, just deleted saying they see nothing wrong. If this continues I will report, I have also warned them on their talk page. - Galatz (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• You have the right to have your own definition of vandalizing, but do not demand others to use the same one.
• You happened to edit an old section of the talkpage, so I missed it. Apart from that, I did not find a valid argument for the POV template. Rather than making a lot of futile noise you could raise the issues point for point.--Wickey-nl (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you didnt read anything in the talk page otherwise you wouldn't have intentionally deleted stuff that was added to the page do to conversations in the talk page. Additionally many background items were added because there was a concern about people unfamiliar understanding the background. So don't blame me for putting it in that section, you clearly came to the page to make executive decisions. - Galatz (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing that you know what I did and did not read. The roof knocking does not make any sense in this context, nor the section about the UNRWA health center. Or can you explain what it has to do with the attacks on the schools?

If you have a problem with the term attack, fine. If you find calling an attack an attack POV, fine. But you will not have much support among honest editors for replacing the word by a covering understatement. A shelling at a target is an attack anyhow, whether at the building, or a few meters away. It were clearly attacks, clearly from the Israeli agressor. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

To give a third opinion here I think Wickey-nl could have a point about "roof-knocking" not really working in that context but, of course he could have moved it somewhere else and not deleted it without any comment. Still I think Wickey-nl is correct that it doesn't fit there. That said I don't think deleting the entire section below without any justification was ok and it could be thought of as vandalism so I would suggest that Wickey-nl put it back into the article and work with Galatz in order to find a solution.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some clarity. I do believe Roof Knocking it extremely import as is the UNRWA health clinic. Its in the background section. It shows how people got there, what the mind set is, how things are happening. Everything is 2 sided. I am not putting anything into the article that says either side is right or wrong. In my opinion I think neither side is correct. Both sides I think need to do more to protect civilians, but in the heat of the moment things happen. What I am saying is that you need context, thats why the background issues message was at the top of the page, we took it down after addding all of this info. Wickey-nl making executive decisions about what is included or not is a vandalism and a violation of the 1RR rule. WP is a community project and everyone should be consulted before decisions are made. - Galatz (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should I not remove the strange line about roof-knocking? The health center section is an absurd insertion that does not provide any background information. I can only see it as a tendentious pushing of inciting items, such as booby-traps and poor IDF soldiers who died while invading occupied territory. Still missing an explanation why this is background information. Did the collapse of the health center bring thousands of refugees into the bombed schools? --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where Wickey-nl is coming from here with the UNRWA Health Clinic section. The section is badly written and basically states that the IDF claimed they had three soldiers killed in a building that they thought was a UN building which the UN later denied and said that the building was once a UN building but has not been one for 3 years. All in all, the section doesn't really seem to add very much to the article. I would suggest that Galatz edit the section's grammar and content into two brief sentences and leave it at that. Simply putting back bad content doesn't fix anything but I understand how frustrating it can be to see content that includes referenced simply deleted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Wickey-nl, I didn't say to keep the roof-knocking line in the text where it was. I agreed with you that it seemed out of place there and suggested that you move it somewhere else. Roof-knocking is a widely discussed tactic being used in the conflict so to not mention it in an article about attacks on civilians would be to ignore an important point.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You suggested me to move it while I think it does not fit in the article at all. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we need background. People who arent familiar with the topic will wonder why people needed shelter, what happened to their homes, etc. You need to give context not just talk about the events that transpired. How else do you propose explaining the background section without explaining why people are there? - Galatz (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, roof knocking is used for houses. I have never heard it used for UN buildings. I am not sure why it is put there. Many Palestinians came to UN shelters, whether their house was "roof knocked" or not. Secondly, the UNRWA clinic section seems to have no connection with the topic, as already pointed out by others. I think User:Wickey-nl's edits were right, though his demeanour is prickly. And I would not call it vandalism, but a dispute over content. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would call it vandalism. It is a lot more than just those two topics. If those pieces of information are not in the background section you really are not giving a clear picture of why so many are there. I agree many are there other than roof knocking. It lists many examples such has booby trapped houses and leaflets. Its to give someone the full picture. Same thing as the health clinic section, its a to give someone unfamiliar with the topic background. It shows a tendency of violating international law and how Israel feels. The health clinic issue is just as important as the other schools. They both show that UN facilities are being abused. - Galatz (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz:

• It is extraordinary to call this vandalism. From WP:Vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Even the discussion here and your own response shows that the dispute is over content.
• Coming to the more important points. The UNRWA clinic part in no way belongs to this article, let along having its own section. Even if the clinic was a UN building (which it was not), it was empty and in no way can be thought of comparable to UNRWA shelters housing many people. The misuse of UNRWA facilities is already present in the background section, like the rockets found in UNRWA schools.
• As to roof knocking, I am still totally puzzled by what connection it has to attacks on UNRWA facilities. People came to UNRWA shelters for many reasons, warnings are just one of them. They may flee even without warnings. And if one wants to include warnings, then do it in a neutral manner. Please see this section, in which all human rights orgs condemn the warnings as ineffective and especially the roof knocking technique which was condemned by every human rights org across the board and the Goldstone report as well. Kingsindian (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds weird to me to demand a "full picture" of the conflict in this article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not demanding full picture of the conflict, thats very different. What I am saying is that any WP article needs background and context to help people understand it. I am not saying summarize the entire operation, but we do need a summary of this particular instance and showing how people got there. As for the roof knocking and homes being destroyed, how else to you explain to readers why these people are there? There were hundreds of thousands that left there homes after leaflets were droppped. Thats a large chunk of people.

A fake UNRWA health clinic sign shows a tendency to hide behind the UNRWA name for immunity. Although its different than schools its just as relevant as rockets being found in the empty schools. They both show abuse of UNRWA facilities. - Galatz (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I am fine with including needed background. There were plenty of dirty tricks on all sides. It is a judgement on what is needed and what is not. The point that Hamas fought from populated areas is already made in the article.

• The UNRWA clinic is totally tangential to the point of this article. The cases we are discussing here are recognized UN schools, being used as shelters, filled with people, the coordinates of which had been communicated to Israel. They had perhaps been hit because of fighting nearby, or stray fire. This is very different from fake sign on a school, not being used as shelter, empty, and coordinates of which were not communicated to Israel, which was booby trapped and collapsed. To conflate these two cases serves no purpose, in my mind. A whole subsection on this is overkill and WP:UNDUE.
• As to issuing warnings, I said already, people come to shelters for a variety of reasons, only one of which is warnings. I am still puzzled by what relevance it would have, even if the people came to the shelters because of warnings. And if you want to include warnings (not needed in my view), then do it in a neutral way, describing pro and con. Just saying Israel dropped leaflets, or rook knocked, is not sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I felt both sides were shown on why they are there. It lists Israel destroying homes, Gazan homes being destroyed because they were booby trapped, and the third reason is they were told to leave. Is there another reason I am missing? I am confused what you mean by both sides. Its showing everything that got them there. If you think Roof Knocking is ineffective, that doesn't change that people are there.

If you don't feel it needs an entire subsection like with the rockets in the empty schools thats fine, it can be trimmed down. But showing tendency to abuse the UNRWA name is extremely important to understand. All of the background is included in the main article, just because its there doesnt mean its not relevant to the background. - Galatz (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I have replaced the section with a single sentence. Perhaps it can be modified somewhat. Gire 3pich2005 seems to have removed the roof knocking part. I'm guessing by the edit summary that they are as confused as me on the relevance. Kingsindian (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I tweaked the wording a bit - Galatz (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the background section in this article should be about the subject of the article, the attacked schools. Not about the conflict itself. An explanation about the cause of refugees is OK and present in the section, but the deleted parts do not add anything to that. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, this is directly related whether you like it or not. It shows a tendency. And it was not a consensus to remove, it was agreed to condense it. - Galatz (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets in UNRWA schools

The fact needs to be mentioned, but the main point is that all the UNRWA schools in which rockets were found were vacant and closed for the summer, and were NOT being used as shelters. This is clear from the sources themselves and the section. None of the shelters which were hit were claimed to have rockets. The claim that was made was that there was fighting in the area and they were shelled by mistake. Given these facts, there should be at most a couple of sentences on this, not a whole section. Kingsindian (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its important to the background of the article. Although those particular schools were not used as shelters at the time, it shows Hamas violating international laws in the context of UN schools. It gives people an understanding of the topics. - Galatz (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: It is indeed present in the background, just reduced to two-three lines, instead of a section. Kingsindian (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This should not be in the background section since it's not background. It's part of the ongoing conflict not something from 2009. I put it in its own section and re-added the dates of the events. Dates are important things to have as clearly shown by ever UNRWA school attack claimed in this article. Remember NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: This article is not about the conflict, but the attacks on UN schools. As you can see from the current background section (last paragraph), it does not only include stuff from 2009. Stuff like many people being in the UN shelters etc. is in the background section for this reason. I do not see any reason given for including this in the lead, as well as having a full section on this, except to "make it more balanced" and NPOV in your view. I'm afraid NPOV does not work that way. You cannot arbitrarily put a data point critical of one side to balance out stuff critical of the other, without considerations of weight. I have already mentioned in the first paragraph of this section why this does not deserve its own section. Can discuss more if you like. Reverting per WP:BRD. Kingsindian (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The three instances when UNRWA found rockets in their schools did not occur in 2009 they took place in July 2014. That's why they don't belong in the background section and that's why they got their own section. They belong in the lead because the article is about attacks on UNRWA schools during July 2014 (when these instances of rockets being found in UNRWA schools took place). The introduction should summarize the article. Currently it leaves out this major fact that rockets have been found in UNRWA schools 3 times in July alone and UNRWA has made that public and condemned whoever is placing them there. trying to remove this well cited information is not justifiable.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems you also removed information on the dates and the links to information on each of the instances. That is starting to look like blatant whitewashing. I would advise you to really think about what you're doing before you start mass deleting dates and sources again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:

• Perhaps you did not understand my prose just above (it was a bit confusingly phrased). The background does not just contain events from 2009; it also contains events from 2014, like the last paragraph (starting with "Within the Gaza strip..."). The background is not based on what was old and what was new, but based on what is relevant to the attacks on UNRWA schools (background) and the actual attacks themselves (main text). This is why the rockets part is put in the background.
• As to why it does not deserve its own section or being in the lead, I already mentioned the reason in the first paragraph of this section. If you address those, I will reply.
• I do not know what you mean by "removed information on the dates...". The part about UNRWA rockets was present already in the revision. See the paragraph starting with: "During the 2014 confict, on three occasions...". Kingsindian (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing the dates hides the fact that the weapons were found prior to and during the time period when the attacks on the schools took place. I'm not an expert on this topic but I'm guessing neither is anyone writing on this page so producing a clear time-line of events with first rockets being found in a school and then an attack on other schools, more rockets being found in a school and more attacks on schools, etc. etc. seems like a very NPOV way of providing this information in the article. When I said that the dates were removed and the sources were removed I meant exactly that. Someone removed the dates from sentence and wrote "on three occasions" which completely masks the chronological element and removes the cited sources which described the events. This is in no way acceptable practice for maintaining a NPOV article on such a controversial topic.- Your point that the background to the events can somehow include things that happened after the event should be a clear contradiction to you. - The point that since the schools didn't have people in them when rockets were stored there doesn't make it irrelevant at all and certainly doesn't mean it should be excluded from the introduction. The fix for this was made by making it clear that the schools were vacant at the times when the UNRWA found the rockets but it still certainly needs to be mentioned that the rockets were first found by UNRWA in their schools before any of these attacks took place.---Finally, I'm in no way supportive of attacking schools here but I'm also in no way supportive of making an article which whitewashes claims about the circumstances/context in which such events took place. That only serves to manipulate the views of readers and conceal from them a truely balanced NPOV presentation of the facts surrounding the topic. I hope that makes sense and I appreciate your dialogue here.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: What exactly is the relation between rockets found in UNRWA schools and the attack on UNRWA shelters? Nobody, not even Israel, claims the attacks took place because of rockets in them. Kingsindian (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Its the same thing I have been saying above about the health clinic issue and the rockets in schools. It shows a trend to violate international law when it comes to places that are supposed to be left alone. It helps set the stage and helps people understand the context. An encyclopedia is for people not familiar with a topic, and this page is supposed to give them that information. - Galatz (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: The issue is not whether the fact of "rockets in UNRWA schools" is related to the attacks -- the fact was indeed present in the background section before the edits. The issue is whether it deserves its own section, as well as a place in the lead. I mentioned my reasons in the first paragraph when I made the edit, condensing the section into a couple of lines, and you agreed with me, as far as I can see. Now Monopoly31121993 wants to put it back in the lead, and give the fact its own section, as well as adding (before the first attack on UNRWA schools) in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The attacks on schools were all justified with claims that rockets were fired from there, not because there were rockets stored. Israel asserted that it fired on Hamas fighters. The dates of the finds are in no way relevant. This is also a reason why it does not belong in the background. As it was no factor in choosing schools as a target, it certainly does not deserve much space. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the definition of the word background "information essential to understanding of a problem or situation"[3]. Based on that definition this is background related and therefore belongs in the background section. - Galatz (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that it is not essential to understanding of the problem or situation. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Health clinic sentence

"Later, a booby-trapped health clinic, mistakenly thought to belong to UNRWA, was detonated killing three IDF soldiers inside."

This does not have anything to do with the attacks on schools. Moreover, the source does not relate it. Doing so by editors will be OR. Thus, even one sentence about it is to much. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Kingsindian (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned several times throughout the talk page it is all about background. It belongs in the background section. It doesn't have to be a 100% direct link to be background. Look at all the sources on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers and see how many say its related to the current conflict. You mean to tell me that its not relevant background because the sources don't say so? There is a big difference between WP:NOR and giving context to readers. - Galatz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The very essence of WP is indeed that all content should directly be based on sources, also the background. All unsourced or improperly sourced content may be removed. While I agree that for the background we can be more flexible, this is not true for controversial and/or disputed content. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should or shouldn't the article 2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools contain the section Other UNRWA incidents? Kingsindian (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This is all about background. When you have someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, the duty of wikipedia is to give them background and context, thats the entire reason for the background section. Without that information someone coming here to learn more does not get the full picture. - Galatz (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Main reason is: this is not an article about the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. It is an article about the attacks on UN shelters. No source is given which claims that the attacks on the shelters had anything to do with the finding of rockets in other empty UNRWA schools. And there is no connection with a booby-trapped fake UNRWA clinic. It is WP:OR to connect the two and having a section for this is WP:UNDUE. The likely reason for the attacks on the shelters (or at least the one given by Israel) is already present in the background: Hamas using human shields, or firing from nearby civilian structures. I propose removing the whole section, but At the very least, this should be reduced to at most a couple of sentences and should definitely not be in the lead. Elaboration can be found here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The material in the section can remain, but the section ought to be retitled (to something like "Militarization of UNRWA schools) or simply merged into "Background". Frankly, this entire article is a huge mess and could use a rewrite to make it more readable. I guess it's hard to pages as contentious as this to read well. Sigh..... Gotta love WP. NickCT (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support but Oppose new naming of section done by Kingsindian. This is absolutely necessary for NPOV. Things happening during the conflict are not background they are part of the events (attacks on UNRWA buildings). What I see here is a pattern of revert editing in order to whitewash this issue into a Palestinian victim discourse and removing information like the dates and sources of UNRWA announcing rockets being found in their facilities is totally unjustifiable. Additionally, changing the name of the section while the discussion is ongoing is part of this. In order to show just how biased this page currently is Wickey-nl above makes the claim that the IDF justified its attacks on UNRWA building (something which doesn't even appear in the article currently much less the introduction where the rationale for such attacks would presumably belong). What's absurd is that we're discussing removing information about a current event. not because this article is too long or because it's not cited but because someone doesn't like it. That's not what Wikipedia is about and it's certainly not an attempt to keep a NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The name was given by Galatz. The other charges are just as baseless. Kingsindian (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Only items directly related to the attacks should be in the article. Both, the rockets and the Health Clinic are WP:OR in that the sources do not connect it with the attacked UN schools. Especially placing current events above the main subject or in the lead is WP:UNDUE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wickey-nl:,@Kingsindian:, @Shrike:, @Galatz: I have just read an article from the Guardian on these attacks that not only provides two IDF justifications for the attacks (1- because Hamas decided to fight a battle near UNRWA facilities and 2) because Hamas stored rockets in the facilities) but als includes the quotes mentioned in the article as responses from the UN and U.S. related to the attacks. I have included these now in the introduction and I believe it clearly summarizes the points made in the article. I am still opposed to removing dates and sources from the text of this article but I believe that this new addition addresses the valid point raised by Wickey-nl's that without such a statement from the IDF this sentence in the introduction would constitute original research WP:OR however it clearly no longer does given the IDF statement.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The quote from the Guardian article includes a boilerplate response from the IDF, blaming Hamas and saying the incidents are under investigation. What else would one expect the IDF to say? You cannot even blame them for that. Even the quoted statement makes no connection at all with the attacks on the shelters, except to say that there have been misuse of UNRWA facilities in the past. I have repeatedly said that I am not averse to including the part about UNRWA rockets in the background, provided it is reduced to a couple of lines and does not have its own section. This stuff taking up half the lead is WP:UNDUE and not acceptable. In the Guardian article quoted, this is a couple of sentences in a long article. And the fake UNRWA clinic part should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I NEVER blamed the IDF spokesperson for stating that UNRWA facilities had been used to store rockets 3 times during the conflict. The comments here are clear that people find this article to be totally non-compliant with WP:NPOV, my advice to you is to think about how we can fix the article not how we can remove some of the only information currently on the page which provides some information about why UNRWA facilities might have been targeted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Hard to argue when all of one's arguments are ignored without even a reply.

Kingsindian (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Funny, I feel exactly the same way. Btw, feel free to stop posting messages to me and start reading through the page, I'm looking at it now and there are plenty of POV statements, casualty figure fabrications, and sources and figures that need checking.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment about phrasing of RFC.The phrasing of RFC is not neutral should uninvolved admin will find that there is not consensus in this RFC then it means that we shouldn't include but there is not concesneus also not to include hence I invite Kingsindian to fix the RFC in my opinion it should read something like that "Should or shouldn't the article..." --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: To be honest, I see no difference at all between the two phrasings. But I have rephrased it to "Should or shouldn't..." Kingsindian (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Тhanks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think the previous title was sufficiently neutral, but it was right of KI to change it anyway. The process only works when everyone can accept it as fair. Shrike's request was minor and reasonable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Include And use those sources specifly about the attacks for example the source that Monopoly31121993 provided.This is basic compliance with WP:OR policy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support including this section. This is relevant to the topic. GabrielF (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment & Support, I do not think that anyone is contesting that the schools were attacked, but without including background as to why the IDF attacked directly or nearby these schools, would create a very one sided article which could be argued to violate WP:NEU and could be said to be advocating one POV of the conflict.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Two points. Firstly, nobody has shown how the fake UNRWA clinic is connected to the shelling. Secondly, everyone who is supporting seems to believe that I want to dump the whole section. This is perhaps my fault, due to the terse statement of the RfC. I only want to not have a separate section for this per WP:UNDUE, but to merge it with the background. There is no justification given for why this has to have its own section. Kingsindian (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Move or remove The placement of this content in the background section suggests that these previous incidents are part of the cause of the later bombings. If they are merely similar incidents that happened in the same year, then they should be placed in an "Also" section toward the end of the article, or even converted to a link to other articles that cover these events directly. EDIT: I haven't read all of the sources cited to support this content. I reserve the right to revise my position if any of them indicate that these earlier bombings were part of the cause of, buildup to, or larger pattern including those that are the main subject of this article. Galatz says the purpose of this section is to give the reader background but, in its current form, it doesn't. It's just a list. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The title of the article is "Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza Shelters," anything not demonstrably and directly related to that has no business in the article. To include it without a direct and demonstrable relation has the effect of creating a sinister inference that is non-encyclopedic. DocumentError (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Galatz and RightCowLeftCoast -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. By the way, this section may include such info as well: Senior UN Official: Hamas Fires Rockets ‘From the Vicinity of U.N. Facilities’ --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support any attempt at balance is an improvement on this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources from 2009 and other sources that don't talk about the attacks.

I removed sources from 2009 as they don't mention the topic of the article in any way. We should only use and I quote from WP:OR "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article".If someone will find sources that discuss attack from 2014 and mention as background attacks from 2009 we may include it as per WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(merged from below) @Shrike: I do not understand your edit summaries in the removal of the 2009 section. How is it WP:OR and WP:UNDUE? The WP:RS connecting the whole section is cited in the first line here, explicitly connecting the 2014 and 2008-9 attacks. Among other things, is the quote here:

The UN's strained relationship with Israel is not new. In Operation Cast Lead, the three-week war in Gaza in 2008 and 2009, Israel accused UNRWA of transporting Hamas rockets in a UN ambulance, a charge it later retracted. After the war, Israel paid compensation for the destruction of an UNRWA warehouse.

The statement from Chris Gunness, Amnesty International and HRW about the white phosphorus is talking about this particular incident in which an UNRWA warehouse was burned. These are not arbitrary points picked out by some editor. From the Deutsche Welle article: "The shelling set fire to the central warehouse in the UN compound, containing food and medicine, and fuel supplies were not safe from the fire, officials said".

I am reverting your edits per WP:BRD. Feel free to discuss/revert. Kingsindian (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote in the section above.The sources from 2009 can't discuss article about an event from 2014.Moreover your quote don't talk about attacks on schools.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: The first reference cited is from 2014. I have added another reference about the attacks on shelters, also from 2014. Kingsindian (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I have no problem using 2014 sources but sources from 2009 has to be removed per WP:OR and other sources that don't discuss the incidents because the source should tell us how and what to include in the article per WP:DUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I do not understand the point. The 2014 sources talk about the attack on the UNRWA warehouse (which was also being used as shelter for about 700 people as the Deutsche Welle source makes clear) and shelters in 2009. The 2014 source is used to establish the connection between 2009 and 2014 (this is why this stuff is in the background section) and the 2009 sources are cited to verify the information. What is wrong with using the 2009 sources to talk about events in 2009? Kingsindian (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Because that don't talk about the attack in 2014 therefore they WP:OR and I already quoted relevant policy.BTW the topic of the article is school incidents and not warehouses.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Here is why I think there is no WP:OR. The background contains things which are related to the attacks on the schools being used as shelters.

• The 2014 sources (two of them, I can add more if you wish) connect the 2014 attacks with the strained relation of Israel with UN and the 2009 attacks on warehouse (which was being used as shelter for 700 people) and attacks on other shelters.
• The rest of the paragraph is simply giving some details about the 2009 attacks (one sentence or phrase each about the 2009 attacks). The 2009 sources are present exclusively to verify these sentences. They are not present to connect them to 2014, which is already done. Kingsindian (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have the sources that discuss those facts in connection with 2014 than its WP:UNDUE i.e extra detalis given by 2009 sources are not needed as no 2014 source discuss them in such detail.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I have added two sources, one from CNN and one and interview with Gunness, both from 2014, discussing the attacks on shelters in 2009 and the white phosphorus issue. I hardly think one sentence each describing attacks is WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The 2009 sources doesn't mention the topic of article so it should go .The interview is problematic too as it nor really a secondary source but a primary a source i.e from WP:PRIMARY "acounts written by people who are directly involved. " hence it can't be used to establish notability.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I do not agree with your argument. However, without removing any content, I have removed some of the 2009 sources and condensed the line about white phosphorus. The rest of the 2009 sources simply list the names of the schools (the fact of the schools being hit is mentioned in the CNN source from 2014) hit during 2009. Not sure if this is good enough. If not, we can discuss more. Kingsindian (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2009 incidents

(Merged into section Talk:2014_Israeli_raids_on_UNRWA_schools#Sources_from_2009_and_other_sources_that_don.27t_talk_about_the_attacks.) Kingsindian (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for POV check

I found this page while searching for unbiased, factual info about the strikes on the UNRWA schools. Unfortunately, this page seems more like a battle ground between two sides with strong opinions about who was right and who was wrong. For example, the title suggests that the IDF set out to kill civilians. I don't know much about the incidents, so I don;t feel qualified to fix this article. Can some other knowledgeable, unbiased editors please step in to make sure this article maintains a neutral POV? Onefireuser (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Onefireuser: I am afraid that is a bit too vague to know exactly what you mean. The title was proposed to be changed, (see the section on the move), and it was decided to keep this title. If you can provide arguments as to why it should be changed, people might change their mind, though you have an uphill battle. Kingsindian (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm sorry I'm not really knowledgeable enough about the incidents to get very involved in the discussion. But the tone of the article felt biased to me as I expressed above, and that is why I put in the request for others to check it. Back to the example of the title, "raid" means "a sudden attack on an enemy by troops, aircraft, or other armed forces in warfare" or "a surprise attack to commit a crime." This implies that the Israelis intentionally attacked the schools. What I had udnerstood from both the right- and left-wing media was that the attacks were accidental and that some may have even involved Hamas rockets (also accidental). The body of the article also suggests that some of the incidents were accidental. So it seems strange that the title uses "raids." Again, I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic, which is why I came to read this article. So perhaps they were indeed "raids" and there is no need to change the title or the tone of the article. Thanks for you attention to this. Onefireuser (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Onefireuser: Thanks for your discussion. However, with a lack of specific concerns about the article (except the title, which was addressed earlier), I am removing the pov-check template for now. If anyone has specific issues to discuss, please raise them. Kingsindian (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments bellow about the title. I believe it clearly doesn't meet the NPOV since a raid is a deliberate attack against a person or place and since all of the incidents in this article appear not to be deliberate attacks again UNRWA buildings or the civilians taking refuge inside them.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge Rafah school incident page

As far as I can see the other page doesn't add anything new. Should be merged here. Kingsindian (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have incorporated into this article what little information was in that article but not yet in this one. Feeling bold, and noting that that article only had one contributor (plus someone who formatted the refs) and was less than a week old (and maybe created by someone who didn't even know they were duplicating this article), I have just redirected that article to here. -sche (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems good. Kingsindian (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Page one which respects NPOV

The current title of this page doesn't reflect it's content. There are no "raids" on UNRWA schools described in this article. What is described are several incidents in which it appears Israeli artillery shells or mortars hit UNRWA schools in which civilians were taking refuge. Several civilians were killed and many more were wounded in these incidents. A "raid" is a deliberate attack on a place or thing and since none of these events were deliberate attacks on UNRWA schools (nearly all appear to be collateral damage incidents in which an UNRWA school happened to be hit) this name should be changed to something both reflective of the article's content and neutral. I propose "Violent incidents at UNRWA Schools during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict"Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I agree that "raid" sounds very deliberate, and I am not comfortable with the title. The deliberateness of various instances in questionable, and but does not seem to be as clear cut as you say. Still, your proposed title "Violent incidents at UNRWA Schools during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" is quite close to "2014 UNRWA schools incidents" which was rejected overwhelmingly in the earlier move. I am not able to come up with a good title. Perhaps "UNRWA shelters hit by Israel during 2014 conflict"? Kingsindian (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: two problems with your title: 1) hit is just a poor verb to be using in the context since we are not talking about hitting someone we are talking about the shelling of a building, intentional or not and 2) Israel is not the noun doing the shelling the Israeli army. How about "UNRWA facilities shelled during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict"Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Any title that does not mention Israel doing the "hitting" is probably a non-starter. Kingsindian (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to consider taking the approach that most other similar articles take and call it "2014 UNRWA School Bombings in Gaza." This would be consistent with other wikipedia article titles like Shooting of Michael Brown, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Dawson's Field hijackings, El Al Flight 426 hijacking, El Al Flight 253 attack, Pan Am Flight 73, 1997 Colombo World Trade Centre bombing, September 11 attacks, 2011 Tucson shooting, USS Liberty incident, Al-Fakhura school incident, and 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike. Just a suggestion. I expect that you are probably going to face repeated flak regarding the title and tone of the article from a NPOV standpoint and you might as well make good-faith changes now, in the best interest of Wikipedia. Onefireuser (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Onefireuser: I am happy to consider changes, as I already said. Keep in mind that I did not even vote on the original move proposal, which was overwhelmingly voted down. It might still be possible to use a title which does not mention Israel, I don't know. Re: the "tone" of the article, I am not sure what you mean. If you elaborate, it would be good. What do you find POV here? Kingsindian (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: you are right. That was pretty vague. When I go back and read the article again, I realize that the tone only feels POV becuase of the tone that is established by the title. If I imagine how the article would sound with the title updated, it no longer seems very POV. Thanks. Onefireuser (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Onefireuser:@Kingsindian: , Thanks for the feedback. My point in not using hitting or bombing is that there seems to be all indications that these were unintentional strikes. That's very different than all of the events you have listed above sine those events were either planned terrorist attacks or some other kind of deliberate attacks. At least in most of these cases it seems that the strikes unintentionally hit these UNRWA schools when responding to attacks or targeting combatants. Again I would propose "UNRWA facilities shelled during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" since that includes a verb (not hit or bomb) but "shelling" which is the verb used for artillery fire hitting something and avoids any inference of deliberate intent.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993 and Onefireuser: The title is a bit long, though perhaps unavoidable. Also, there was another issue I wanted to mention. There were other UN facilities which were damaged (the estimates are about 70 of them were). What makes these notable is that they were used as shelters. So perhaps "UNRWA shelters shelled during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict"? Kingsindian (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, "UNRWA shelters shelled during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" that seems to reflect NPOV so I'm in agreement.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: No, no. You should not move a controversial page like this. Please open a request for move and allow people to give comments. I am reverting the edit for now. Kingsindian (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you do not need to update the links after a move. The page is automatically redirected. Kingsindian (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The page title has been so grossly POV that it needed to be changed that I was WP:BOLD. Unless we want to dismiss this page as a WP:POVFORK. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:, @Plot Spoiler: name change was voted on above: there was no consensus to mv the article. Then Monopoly31121993 unilaterally mv it. This is completely unacceptable. It was undone, and then mv again by Plot Spoiler: still completely without consensus. I am moving it back to its old title. Now, there might be a better title than that, lets discuss it. But these unilateral moves without consensus that Monopoly31121993 initiated are really not acceptable. Don´t claim WP:BOLD just to ignore discussion. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Huldra. I am not averse to a move, but it should be done in a proper manner, not like this, as I mentioned above. Other people than just me have opinions on the topic. Just because I agree that the title is ok doesn't mean all agree. Open a request for move if you wish to do it. Kingsindian (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra:@Monopoly31121993:, @Plot Spoiler:, Ok, ok. No need to get upset here. It seemed like there was a clear consensus that everyone saw some major problems with the page name as it was before and my change of name was a taken after we had agreed on what I thought was clearly a moderate compromise position. I'm not experienced in making an RfC so if Kingsindian wouldn't mind creating that here with the compromise name that we agreed to I would greatly appreciate it. I would emphasize there that there was a consensus reached by us over the fact that 1) the events were not "raids" (deliberate attacks again someone or something) and that 2) the attacks were "shelling" incidents, or "shellings" (ie. the verb used to describe artillery or mortar fire impacting something) and not bombings. Huldra, I would encourage you to make your perspective on why you think this title is inappropriate (if you feel that it is) known as soon as possible. Otherwise, if you're just opposed to having the named changed without the RfC, please vote in favor of the proposal right away so we can improve the current state of the page more quickly. Many thanks.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra:@Monopoly31121993:, @Plot Spoiler:, Let me just add a link also to this page Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#How to avoid status quo stonewalling which I think will be helpful in getting us to a consensus quickly. Again, I'm asking Huldra to provide your discussion quickly so we can correct this current title which we have had a consensus was incorrect in its usage of the word "raid" and needs to be changed as soon as possible in order to provide a more suitable NPOV title.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:, @Plot Spoiler: As Kingsindian writes above: "Any title that does not mention Israel doing the "hitting" is probably a non-starter." I suggest that you put the possible candidates for title here, and then let us discuss them. The link to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#How to avoid status quo stonewalling is not very helpful to a friendly discussion. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra:, ok well since the verb we are suggesting is "shelling" it's a little less of the POV pushing than some opinionated editors may have but I would appreciate it if you would try to work toward resolving this, it would show an act of good faith.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How about "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA shelters"? Kingsindian (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:, @Plot Spoiler: @Kingsindian: Good suggestion; I think "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA shelters" is acceptable. Or perhaps "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters", or "2014 Israeli shelling of Gaza UNRWA shelters" Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler:, @Huldra: @Kingsindian: Great, done, please vote below.CheersMonopoly31121993 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Request 2

2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools → 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters –@Huldra:,@Kingsindian:, @Plot Spoiler:, @Galatz:, @Maurice Flesier:, @Imc:, @Tdl1060:, @Mhhossein: @Shrike: The name of the article current has a NPOV problem because the word "raid" implies a deliberate attack and this article describes events in which artillery or mortar shells hit UNRWA shelters although there is no indication that the shelling was deliberately against either the UNRWA shelters or their inhabitants. The proposed name uses the verb "shelled" to describe the action of the artillery and mortars impacting these "UNRWA shelters." The use of UNRWA shelters adds additional clarification of what these building were being used for at the time of the shellings.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• SupportMonopoly31121993 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters is an acceptable title, (though I don´t agree with all your reasoning). "Raid" for me implies "soldiers on the ground", and nowhere have I seen that that was the case. The shelters were shelled, or bombed, quite simply. (So 2014 Israeli bombing of UNRWA Gaza shelters would also be ok) Huldra (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(I see you don´t have "Gaza" in the suggested title, do you mind adding it? Huldra (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC))

• Support per Huldra. Add Gaza to the title. Kingsindian (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changing the proposed name back to the original name to include the word GazaMonopoly31121993 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User:Huldra. Regardless of whether the attacks were deliberate, shelling is a more accurate description.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User:Huldra. Huldra's suggestion is more accurate. Although the sources say that the attacks were deliberately done because Israel aimed to avoid the Hamas possible using of such places. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• I have made the change per universal consensus.Monopoly31121993 (talk)

No rockets in shelters

@Knightmare72589: You have removed the claim that no rockets were found in any shelters. This is a fact which nobody doubts. How could there be rockets in a school full of hundreds of people? Nobody, not even Israel, claims that there were rockets there. If there were, wouldn't it be noted by somebody? One does not need to prove a negative here. This statement is only present to make it clear that the schools with rockets are different from the shelter schools.

Secondly, you have added this paragraph picking one sentence from an UNRWA report. No indication is given of how it is relevant. The relevant statements by UNRWA denouncing the neutrality and Israel about misuse of UN facilities is already present in the lead. Nobody claims that the two other schools which were near the one where rockets were found, were shelled because of this.

I have reverted the edit per WP:BRD. I have added the sentence "UNRWA denounced the groups responsible for "flagrant violations of its neutrality" to the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1) If there is no source that says no rockets were found in occupied schools, then it shouldn't be added.

2) On the UNRWA website, it says: "As soon as the rockets were discovered, UNRWA staff were withdrawn from the premises, and so we are unable to confirm the precise number of rockets. The school is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate 1,500 internally displaced persons." It doesn't matter if you think it is irrelevant. It is however completely relevant to the discussion as a whole. If you do not think that placing rockets in a vacant school that is in a complex next to other schools that house over 3,000 other people isn't important to know, then you are very much pushing a POV. I will be adding this paragraph back. It is an important bit of information. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: You have reverted my edit wholesale. simply reinstated the paragraph. I ask you to revert it back per WP:STATUSQUO while we discuss. One is not supposed to simply reinstate the edit if it is reverted. Regarding your points.

• There have been no rockets found in any shelters. There is nobody who even suggests that this is false. One does not need a source for this. All the rockets in other UNRWA schools were found by UNRWA staff themselves and they reported it. Your insistence that I provide a source for something that is so obvious that nobody even considered the question, is bizarre. See WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR.
• Your reasoning for the second point is simply that you feel it is important. You have given no reason as to how it is important. It is not up to me to demonstrate the relevance. See WP:BURDEN. The UNRWA statement denouncing violation of neutrality and the Israeli claim of Hamas misusing UN facilities is already present in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You honestly don't see how it is not important to note that the rockets were found in vacant UNRWA schools that were next to two UNRWA schools that had a total of 3,000+ people? Apparently UNRWA thought it was important enough to note since they are the ones who said it in a press release. They said it in a press release literally 2 sentences after saying that the rockets were found in the vacant school. If you honestly do not see how this is not important to note, then the conclusion is that you don't want people to see it. That is pushing a POV. If you only want people to see the rockets were in a vacant school, then you are making it seem like the rockets being stored there didn't post a threat to anyone. But they did pose a threat to people because they were located right next to other UNRWA schools that had 3,000+ people in them. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: I fully understand that having rockets inside schools is very serious. To underline the seriousness, the rockets issue is given a full paragraph in the lead, almost half the lead (not my choice, but I didn't insert it there). There is an UNRWA denunciation of the event, as well as a long quote by an IDF spokesman, reproduced verbatim. Now you want to add another thing in the lead about the rockets. All this, while there is no evidence at all that the shelters were attacked due to rockets in them, nor any rockets in nearby schools, nor does anyone, including Israel, claim such a thing. The rockets issue only takes up a couple of lines in the article, but is quoted verbatim in the lead. There are few details of the rest of the article, except the reaction to the Rafah attack. This should be sufficient to show that it is WP:UNDUE to include more stuff about the rockets in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I have removed the statement from the lead according reasoning above, to get back to the status quo. I have also removed the statement from the "Background" section, because an RfC is going on concerning that section. Once it is finished, it is possible to decide whether to include the statement there. Kingsindian (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Editorial Statement in Lede

In the lede, the following sentence is - I believe - problematic: "The IDF has stated that "Hamas chooses where these battles are conducted and, despite Israel’s best efforts to prevent civilian casualties, Hamas is ultimately responsible for the tragic loss of civilian life. Specifically in the case of UN facilities, it is important to note the repeated abuse of UN facilities by Hamas, namely with at least three cases of munitions storage within such facilities." This is a two-sided conflict and to include an editorial statement by one of the belligerents in that conflict in the lede is startlingly NPOV. Either this should be balanced by a statement from the other belligerent (the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Hamas), or it should be omitted entirely. DocumentError (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that the whole article\leas is one systematic POV Statement. Despite being a two-sided conflict, the lead reads as if Israel intentionally shelled shelters, where Palestinians took shelter from again Israeli air strikes and as a result of Israeli shelling Palestinians and UNRWA personnel died... There is no context, only assigning blame then it reads as "according to israel" followed by condemnation... So yes, the lead and article should be balanced--Elysans (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

Synth, POVFORK

How is this whole article not just WP:SYNTH and a WP:POVFORK? What sources actually speak of 7 incidents as indicated here and why is there so little inclusion of Israel's counter-claims -- that either militants were operating in the area or it was not their munitions that struck the facilities? Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler:

• For WP:SYNTH, this source from the lead talks about all 7 incidents.
• As for Israel's response, there is a long quote by IDF spokesperson in the lead, talking about abuse of UN facilities, militants operating in the area etc.
• As the source indicates, the likelihood (of course nothing is sure) is that it was Israeli shelling which hit all the shelters, and not other munitions. There was one incident which was initially disputed, but over time the view has become clear that it was Israeli shelling.
• Lastly, militants operating in the area/human shields etc. is present in the background section. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope I get an answer sometime before next year. Kingsindian (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: If I get no response, I will remove the tags. Kingsindian (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• One article? Wow. That hardly seems sufficient, especially given The Guardian's well known bias on the issue.
• Wow. One quote from the IDF spokesperson. That doesn't make the article any less of a POVFORK.
• Lastly, you're participating in the AFD and you obviously can see that many editors have serious POV and SYNTH concerns. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler:

• One article is sufficient to address WP:SYNTH, which is a totally spurious objection anyway. Can someone actually read WP:SYNTH and tell me where it is written that the whole topic of an article must be covered by one source? People just throw terms around carelessly.
• It is not just one quote from the IDF spokesperson. I noted already that half the background is about militants in the area/human shields. There is a big subsection in the background "Other UNRWA incidents". For the one incident which was disputed, (Beit Hanoun), the Israeli response is included in the section.
• As to the AfD, if they have concerns, they are free to express it here. That discussion is about the AfD. Kingsindian (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the structure of the article, adding an overview section, moving 4 of the 7 incidents into that section, while leaving three schools intact. I have added the HRW investigation, and mentions of the Israeli investigation and UN investigation. I have removed the tags at the top of the page for now. If there are any more questions, feel free to discuss them or put tags etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: Is there going to be some explanation about why this is still synth? And why is the title POV? Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

---

@Plot Spoiler:, I agree.

• The official UN Board of Inquiry on Gaza covers 10 incidents (not 7 in this fork) that occurred between 8 July and 26 August 2014.
• It recognize the difficulties in obtaining clear and reliable evidence about what precisely happened in each of the incidents, many of which took place in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place.
• It note authenticated video evidence, showing the launching of a projectile from within the school premises on 14 July. And document that identify the places close to the school from which rockets had been launched. Concludeding that it was highly likely that an unidentified Palestinian armed group could have used the school premises to launch attacks on or around 14 July.
• It notes that UNRWA couldn't secure\monitor all of its facilities. Despite of its limited monitor teams\inspectiosn finding no evidence of no weapons or signs of militant activity. Those were uncovered on several of those sites. Including mortars stored hidden behind lock and key, which disappeared ny the time its inspection team could arrive (was detained due to security situation in the vicinity of the school)
• Overall the Board also found that the presence of weapons and other evidence found in the school indicated that the premises could have been used for an unknown period of time by members of a Palestinian armed group and that it was likely that such a group may have fired the mortar from within the premises of the school.

Also it should be noted that the article suffers from WP:SYN, many of the comments has been arranged not according to the timeline e.g. most of the international responses should labeled initial, and there is a lack of responses to the following evidence that the UNRWA facilities has been used by armed groups. --Elysans (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the standing POV issue (the lack of any mention of Palestinian armed groups using the facilities or the area around them and cherry picked a timeline of 7 incidents) "UNRWA confirmed rockets fired by Hamas landed in the area" of one of the schools. Nevertheless the article is defined in the lead as Only Israeli shelling and resulting death... --Elysans (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. This topic is covered as its own topic by a number of sources, the timeline isnt cherry-picked. Further, the article includes that Palestinian weapons were found in UNRWA schools (though not in any ones being used as shelters) and includes the rather specious Israeli claim of oh whenever we kill a civilian its really the fault of Hamas. Articulate specifically what and where there is a NPOV issue with this page. nableezy - 15:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Elysans, you have made a fair bit of changes to the article, which is fine to be WP:BOLD. I am reverting some of them per WP:BRD, because they are not correct and they have been discussed in detail here before. We can discuss them if you wish.

• This seven incidents is not "cherry picked". The 10 incidents in Ban's report covers a broader category. Ban himself refers to "Regarding the seven incidents in which death or injuries occurred at, or damage was done to, United Nations premises ...".
• It is not permissible to state editorially in the lead that there was heavy fighting going on in close proximity to the schools (where did you get that by the way)? That's what Israel claims, but for that there is a separate section, discussing both the claim and the counterclaims. Israel's claims are already provided in one long paragraph in the lead which is a direct quote. Also they were not "incidents" (see earlier move review changing the title to "incidents" where this terminology was agreed against.
• Why is the sentence stating that there were people using UN facilities as shelters removed from the lead? It is surely relevant to the topic?
• I don't get this edit. Where does the source state that militants shot from the places which were attacked? In fact the three places which were used to store rockets and (probably) launch attacks from were empty and not attacked by Israel. I have reverted this.
• This edit is a confused version of the events. It states that CLA issued statements that militants were near the facilities, but does not include statements by witnesses which state that no firing occurred near the facilities. It confuses the ICRC (who tried to evacuate a few days before 24 July) with UNRWA (who tried to evacuate on 24th July). The report clearly states that the "UNRWA contacted the CLA and repeatedly requested that a window of opportunity be granted for this purpose. No such window was granted by the time of the incident." Render the UN report correctly, or not at all. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. This topic is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alleged misuse of UN facilities by both sides has been subject of controversy in 2009 and more recently here in 2014 Israeli-Gaza conflict. Ban's report into the incidents attempts to cover both POVs regarding the alleged cause and effects, as oppose to "ambulance chasing" and ignoring the context in which those incidents took place, which is what the majority of the report attempts to ascertain.
2. Concerning this edit. No it doesn't, nor have I suggested that, please review the paragraph and source again. Unlike the previous paragraph which deals with the seven incidents in which death occur, this one specifically noted to deal with the "three separate occasions" in which Palestinian rockets were found. As for the firing, it is per source: "I am dismayed that Palestinian militant groups would put United Nations schools at risk by using them to hide their arms," [..] Ban said. "However, the fact that they were used by those involved in the fighting to store their weaponry and, in two cases, probably to fire from is unacceptable."
3. Concerning the lead - "heavy fighting going on in close proximity to [some] of the schools" is a fact covered by numerous sources, the report and article. Although I specifically used the neutral language from the report concerning the incident involved taking place "in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place". You are welcome to expand upon this summary in the article, specifying the IDF\UNRWA\locals arguing about the when and where and what close proximity means.
4. As for shelters, check again, it was noted that the seven facilities that were hit were shelters. What has been removed is the undue background information concerning the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict as a whole and all UNRWA shelters. The topic is about the alleged misuse of UN facilities, during time of armed conflict. Not the background of this conflict, which can be found in 2014 Israeli-Gaza conflict entry or to lesser extent in the background section. --Elysans (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as the unfounded claim that this is synth, here are several sources discussing the shelling of 7 schools as one topic. That should settle that. nableezy - 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Elysans To each of your points:

• This page is about the attacks on UN shelters. It is only one section of the main article 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. There is no "cause and effect". Ban's report, among all others on the topic, make clear that the three schools which were used to store rockets were empty and not used as shelters. Nobody claims that the shelters which were attacked had rockets in them.
• Regarding this edit again, you are confusing things. Ban's statement is talking about the three empty schools. He is dismayed that ... etc. This is already present in the lead, as well as the article. ("On three separate occasions, Palestinian rockets were found to have been stored in UNRWA schools – on July 16, July 22, and July 29. UNRWA denounced the actions as "flagrant violations of the inviolability of its premises" by the groups responsible. Ban's report does not state that the non-empty schools which were attacked were used by militant groups to launch attacks. In fact, it says clearly that witnesses stated that there was no firing from the schools. Thus when you write that "...armed fighters were shooting at Israel in the vicinity of many of the places that were attacked" it is editorializing, as well as wrong.
• The next edit is again in the same vein. Where does anyone say that "there was close fighting in the vicinity of the schools"?
• Regarding the shelters, it is one line stating that the UN building were used as shelters. The lead is supposed to be a summary. I am open to restating or paraphrasing it in some way. The main thing is to make clear why these UN building had so many people in them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. "This page is about the attacks on UN shelters" - Attacks? I have yet to see evidence that UN shelters or its occupant has been intentionally targeted by the IDF. For example in the "Rafah Preparatory" incident sub section, it is specifically noted that UN shelters wasn't the target, just been in the vicinity of a moving one as part of the armed conflict taking place there.
2. Regarding this edit, please read what I wrote, as you keep trying to argue something we agree upon. The confusion stems from your choice to remove the whole paragraph that adds the final report conclusion that those three schools were used for more than just storing arms by Palestinian groups, instead of simply removing the misplaced sentence: "and that armed fighters were shooting at Israel in the vicinity of many of the places that were attacked". Btw any idea if UNRWA Jabalia Elementary A&B that were hit, located in the same five school complex as UNRWA Jabalia Elementary C, where the weapons were found and located by a known area used by Palestinian in previous war as well?
3. "Where does anyone say that 'there was close fighting in the vicinity of the schools'" - It is noted in several sources and in the UN report. The hit shelters are located within the three-kilometer "buffer zone" in which IDF fought against Palestinian groups, and the area surrounding the Beit Hanoun was specifically notes as "particularly dangerous and, as hostilities intensified, the entire area was exposed to fierce combat". The fact that those incidents took place "in a situation of armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place" (as it is put forth in the UN report) is notable, good summary of the circumstances that is missing in the lead.
4. Regarding the shelters, if you have a better suggestion please offer it, however, the current info that covers all of UNRWA facilities usage for the whole 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, isn't a summary of this article, but a copy paste from 2014 Israeli-Gaza conflict article. It is WP:UNDUE in the lead. (btw there are also issues with second paragraph IDF statement, I am just not that far along to get to it)
5. Regarding your edit this is the reason why I kept to the fact of the matter i.e. numbers, dates, statements and things that both sides agree upon. Now you'll have to add according to UNRWA stuff "No such window was granted by the time of the incident" because this is contested with the IDF i.e. one more reason why this article is tagged as POV.

--Elysans (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Elysans While I am glad that you are discussing things, I am not pleased by your simply reinstating your edits. What is the point of discussing things if you are simply going to make the same edit again? To your points, in order:

• I am reverting the edit again, in which you again call these "incidents". This terminology has already been rejected in the past. Just because Israel claims they were not intentional does not mean that they were not "shellings". There was specifically a move request to call these "incidents" instead of "shellings" or "raid" (its earlier title), and it was rejected. Ban's report calls them "incidents" because his report covers more than just the shellings, as I've said already.
• Ok, we agree that the latter part "and that armed fighters were shooting at Israel in the vicinity of many of the places that were attacked", should not be present there. I see you have restored the other part, which is fine.
• You again added "close proximity" to the lead. "Close proximity" does not mean 3 kilometers. I need a source stating that there was fighting going on "in close proximity" of the schools. Only Israel says so, but then its POV is already present in the lead. As the UN report notes, the witnesses state that there wasn't any firing near the schools when they were hit.
• You again, simply removed the sentence about people seeking shelter in UN schools. Do you think it is important to make the point that there were lots of people displaced into UN schools as shelters? If you feel that it is inadequate to write the whole sentence, then condense it, don't delete it. I have tried to condense it. Let me know if you think it is ok.
• The reason for not adding stuff which is xby Israel is not valid. Just because one party disputes something does not make it non-notable. If you wish to render the UN report, do it correctly and fully. Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for stuff which is disputed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the last. Like I said, since you are aware that what you added is disputed, your failure to add "according to" and the lack of counter claim is the reason why this article is tagged as POV. As for the rest we have sidetracked from the topic with specific edits I made. I will start a new discussion on those.--Elysans (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Say what? I attributed the statement to witnesses, UNRWA and the UN report correctly. How does that violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? And just because Israel claims otherwise does not make something "disputed". You can find the same account of the evacuation and firing close or far away etc. in the Human Rights Watch report, where they again cite witness testimony. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ?

Move Request 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters → UNRWA facilities and the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict This embarrassingly (embarrassing to Wikipedia) POV article might be made acceptable if it was moved to a neutral title and edited in a neutral manner. Including, that is, information on location of Hamas command bunkers, offensive/attack tunnel entrances, and rocket launchers underneath and adjacent to UNRWA facilities (health clinics and schools), and the documented refusal of UNRWA to evacuate shelters from the vicinity of which rockets were being launched by Hamas. Editors promoting this article could demonstrate good will by including a wider range of sources and types of information. As it stands, article is a form of propaganda not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Support.This more NPOV title--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, per NPOV. --Elysans (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per NPOV. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure it's a good idea to open a move request while an AfD is going on. Kingsindian (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the AfD is still taking place? link? --Elysans (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is the topic that numerous reliable sources discuss as its own topic. The claims of POV boil down to not liking that there are numerous sources that specifically discuss Israeli shellings on UNRWA schools used as shelters during the last attack on Gaza. The laugh out loud claim that the article is "propaganda" really doesn't need a response, but HRW and the United Nations dont seem to see it that way. The claim that the article is "not worthy of inclusion" here is belied by the fact that it has already been sent to AfD and look, its still here. This title describes a topic that is covered as its own topic in numerous reliable sources, and as such this is the best descriptive title for the topic. nableezy - 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know why this old move request is recycled but it is clear, as Nableezy for example writes above, that the shellings of the shelters is discussed as an own topic. Perhaps you could argue that before, back in September 2014, but certainly not now. Israel is also blamed for them. Look for example at the UN report that was recently released (Israel responsible for Gaza strikes on UN schools and shelters, inquiry finds, The Guardian or UN: Israeli military killed 44 Palestinians at UN shelters, AP). --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see Plot Spoiler has reverted my archiving. Do you really want to respond to a malformed request opened a year ago? It is not even listed at "requested moves" so nobody will bother to respond. Feel free to waste your time if you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

@Plot Spoiler: Feel free to actually tell us what is wrong with the page now. I will remove the tag you added tomorrow if I don't get an explanation, as required. I would have done it now, but I don't want to break 1RR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Still ignoring all the reasons I've previously given above because you disagree with them? Come on... Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You tried those reasons at an AfD, they didnt gain a consensus. Got anything else? nableezy - 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: I actually did not ignore your reasons, even though I don't agree with them. Since the AfD, I have rearranged the matter of the article to focus on the three major shellings with the largest number of casualties, since this was one of the points raised there. Also, I added the Human Rights Watch investigation of the shellings, who also concentrate on these three incidents. There is the IDF version as well in the appropriate sections, and mentions of the UN and IDF's own investigation. Again, if you give no reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I will remove the POV tag tomorrow. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nableezy, that the AfD did not have consensus one way or another does not invalidate the POV problems in this article -- obviously. Scurry along now... Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the POV tag. I need a list of reasons as to why this is still POV. And some discussion on it. Just hanging a POV tag without discussion is not allowed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The issues hasn't been resolved. I have re-added the tag, as well as adding little detail to issues raised in the "Synth, POVFORK" section above.--Elysans (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources to add

• Daniel Tragerman was killed by mortar fired from UN facility – ex-IDF chief Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shellings in the Lead

Regarding this Edit, which was reverted.

There is an NPOV and accuracy issue with the use of phrase "Shellings at UNRWA facilities". The term Shelling is synonyms with "fire on, shoot at". Despite various claims, it hasn't been established in the article that any UNRWA facilities has been intentionally targeted, meanwhile it has been established that least in one incident UNRWA facilities hasn't been the target, nor struck.

Hence the replacing "Shellings at UNRWA facilities" with "incidents at UNRWA facilities" when followed by detailed explanation. That all the "incidents were the result of artillery, mortar or aerial missile fire which struck on or near the UNRWA facilities". Is more accurate summary of the article, and avoid NPOV issues by using the neutral language as in the UN report.--Elysans (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed these in the section above already, but will put them here for completeness. Firstly, this terminology calling them "shellings", "attack" or "raid" (earlier vesion of the page) is the preferred terminology. There has already been a move request for calling them "incidents" rejected. Secondly, even if one is willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt, calling them "shellings" does not make it intentional. One can of course say without any logical contradiction that "X shelled the building Y by mistake in trying to hit Z." Third, "attacks", "strikes" etc. is the preferred terminology elsewhere, like the links Nableezy provided in this diff. Calling them "incidents" is an unacceptable watering down of the events. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Incident is euphemistic, and shelling is accurate. The sources call them shellings, and a the place that is shelled need not be intentionally targeted for it to have been a shelling. nableezy - 18:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian.

• Again, the term shelling is synonyms with "fire on, shoot at, attack" and I have yet to see anything in the article(or your comment) that establish it as such.
• This is not a request to move. This an NPOV/accuracy issue in the lead. The change outlined above (term, followed by a precise explanation) solves the NPOV issue providing an accurate summary of the incidents.
• FYI, I went through the report and while the word "shelling" has been extensively used to describe military activity in the vicinity of the schools, I haven't seen any of the incidents described as a shelling. (also unlike here they distinguish: artillery shelling, from air bombardment and rocket fire)
• Concerning "preferred terminology", I noted your inclining to call Israel account of events as "claims" taking at face value the other claims. So please provide any source that establish that those UNRWA facilities has been intentionally targeted i.e. the POV that Israel intentionally attacked them.
• The UN report established that least in one incident UNRWA facilities hasn't been the target, nor struck.

--Elysans (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have said this already, and Nableezy has also pointed this out, that the word "shelling" by itself does not imply intention. You say that "shelling" is synonymous with "attack" or "fired on". Well, the Human Rights Watch report calls them "attacks". So does the Yahoo News report. This Reuters report call them "fired on". This BBC report calls them "struck". All links available at the diff I linked earlier. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian. The word "shelling" isn't used by itself. And shelling, which is the practice of "firing shells at" is synonymous with "attack, shoot at, fire on".

1. Shelling UNRWA facilities i.e. "Attack, Shooting at, fire on" a civilian facilities - constitute a war crime. - Hence the NPOV violation, and my request for you to provide source that established that those civilian facilities has been intentionally targeted - which you failed.
2. Using "firing shells at UNRWA facilities" in the lead isn't accurate summary of the incidents, since at least in one case it has been established that UNRWA facilities hasn't been fired at (nor was it a shelled per se). So my proposed solution above to use "incidents at UNRWA facilities" followed by detailed explanation that all the "incidents were the result of artillery, mortar or aerial missile fire which struck on or near the UNRWA facilities". - is both accurate, comprehensive and has no NPOV issues.--Elysans (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You again say that "shelling" is synonymous with "attack" and "fire on". I gave many links which say both "attack" and "fire on". If you feel that shelling is inaccurate, use WP:DR, open an RfC etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that it was intentional. Shells are not precise and can hit several hundreds meters away from the target, which again shows it has nothing to do with being intentional.

So to change it to just "incidents" would not be accurate and rather suppress what happened and is not the common description. "Attacks" seems more accurate, though, of the reason you mentioned. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Circumstances in the lead

Regarding this Edit, which was reverted.

Concerning the use of: "The incidents occurred during the Israeli-Gaza armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place."

• It is a fact that that incidents occurred during an armed conflict.
• It is a fact that "hit" facilities has been located within the the three-kilometer "buffer zone" in which IDF conducted its ground operation against Palestinian militants, and which suffered the majority of damage as result of their fighting.
• Numerous sources, and the report indicate that fighting occurred near most of the facilities (strikes and ground operations). For example in the case of Beit Hanoun shelter, where the area surrounding the school was "particularly dangerous and, as hostilities intensified, the entire area was exposed to fierce combat". And at one time the school was hit from gun fire and shrapnel.
• Kingsindian said that the UN report notes several local witnesses saying that there was no militant activity "near vicinity" of the schools. - I am not sure what "near vicinity" means e.g. in Beit Hanoun they also said that rocket launching could be heard from areas "further away".
• The UN report described all the incident as occurring in "a situation of armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place."[4]

Currently the lead is missing any information on the circumstances of the incidents. I find the above a good summery of the circumstances, that use natural language and without going into to much detail.--Elysans (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed these topics above, but will put it here for completeness. By no stretch of language can three kilometers be called "close proximity". The UN report and the Human Rights Watch report both note witness testimony saying that there were no firing or militant activity near the schools, the closest it says is about "half a kilometer" several days before the bombing. Again, by no stretch of imagination can it be called "close proximity". Israel's POV is present already in the lead, in the form of a whole paragraph and quote verbatim - I did not add it there, but I am fine to include it. The circumstances of each shelling is described in the sections devoted to them, where all versions are provided. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite your military expertise regarding distances on the battlefield (and strawmen about the 3 kilometers) this is the language that is used in the UN report above. Also few examples from there:

• In the evening, the shelling gained in intensity in the immediate vicinity of the school, where militant activity was also noted.
• in the weeks and days prior to the incident, there were several incidents of shelling by the IDF of buildings in the vicinity of the School.
• On 21 July, the security situation in the Maghazi refugee camp rapidly deteriorated, with shelling increasing in the vicinity of the school.
• he area surrounding the school was particularly dangerous and, as hostilities intensified, the entire area was exposed to fierce combat

I would be inclined to use this: "a situation of armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place." Also this statement of fact, has nothing todo with the IDF "according to" statement paragraph --Elysans (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I claim no military expertise. I was referring to your comment about the 3 kilometer buffer zone. If you are willing to drop the comment, so am I. To your points in order:

• This particular point is correct, but again, this is on a separate day from the actual attack. I agree that this is somewhat close in time to the attack (which took early morning on the next day). Note that this is not one of the three major "incidents". (Seven people were injured and none were killed)
• The rest of the three points are bizarre. The area near the building shelled even earlier by Israel, and this proves militant activity how?
• Again, 21 July is not when the attacks took place. The shelling was by Israel.
• Again, this is not talking about the day the attacks took place.

I will note that in all cases, the report notes that guards were present in the school and they did not allow any militants inside the school. In almost all cases, witnesses testified that there was no fighting in or nearby the school. If you wish to add a statement explaining the circumstances of the shelling, do it properly. Not just cherry picking of one incident where there was something.

I propose this:

In almost all cases, the UN report gave witness statements that was no militant activity in or near the schools. Israel stated that it had detected militant activity in the area. In one case, the UN report noted some militant activity noted near the school in question a few hours prior to the attack.

Here are the statements for the claim that "in almost all cases". The incidents are labeled in the same number as used in the UN report

• Incident a) paragraph 19
• Incident b) paragraph 23
• Incident c) paragraph 27
• Incident d) paragraph 35 - this is the incident which you have noted above.
• Incident e) paragraph 39
• Incident f) paragraph 43
• Incident g) paragraph 45 (school was empty and locked)

Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time following your train of thought. To summarize:

• The wording I suggested has been taken from the UN report. Softened to avoid 'editorializing' per your prior concern. ("a situation of armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in proximity to where fighting was taking place.")
• There is no question that all the incidents covered in the article: 1. took place during a situation of armed conflict. 2. Were located within the the three-kilometer "buffer zone" in which IDF conducted its ground operation against Palestinian militants, and which suffered the majority of damage as result of their fighting.
• There is no question that fighting was taking place in proximity to some of the facilities, per our article, UN report and other sources.

What is bizarre is your attempt to manufacture a timeline ( i.e. if fighting in the week prior is relevant. Like in your previous comment, where you attempted to define "close proximity") when it was deemed relevant in the UN report and is included in the article. Furthermore i haven't said anything about Palestinian militant activity (it would go into second paragraph to counter IDF statement). --Elysans (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid my reply will just repeat the points I made above. I suggest that you open an RfC with both your proposal and mine, and let other people comment on it. I can open the RfC if you want. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

whole conflict

@ Kingsindian concerning the changes introduced here. I disagree, and since we have several standing issue related to the lead, I am reverting them until we can discuss and resolve them.

To answer your question:

"Do you think it is important to make the point that there were lots of people displaced into UN schools as shelters?"

No, I don't think it notable in the lead. Instead of defining the topic -- what were the seven incidents and their result-- it feels like you are trying again to soapbox the whole conflict in the middle.

Furthermore, concerning this is the paragraph from background section which the above tries to summarize:

In 2014, within the Gaza Strip there were more than 80 schools[19] of the 252[20] run by the UNWRA. In addition, over 5,000 homes have been destroyed and 30,000 other damaged by the IDF.[21] A total of 460,000 Palestinians have been displaced due to these factors, since the beginning of the current conflict.[22] A projected 200,000 Palestinian civilians (10% of Gaza's population) have sought shelter in the schools, since they do not have alternative options.[23]

Care to explain how the three marked sentences directly related to the topic or maybe support of some [unspelled] accusations?--Elysans (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont think its soapboxing to include that people were displaced and they sought shelter in the schools. It explains why people were there. Seems like fairly basic information. nableezy - 08:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but then someone else might argue that you need to explain why they were displaced.. and then During the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, many Palestinians fled their homes after warnings by Israel or due to air strikes or fighting in the area. During the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict an estimated 200,000 people (10% of Gaza's population) took shelter in UNRWA schools.you start pointing fingers aka 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. In the variant I suggested above, it was noted that the incidents occurred during armed conflict and that the hit UNRWA facilities were being used as shelters for Palestinians. It provided info on the what\when\where and who was effected in those incidents. Leaving the rest for our tiny background section.--Elysans (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry what, you think that a one-line explanation of why the UN facilities were being used as shelters is not notable for inclusion in the lead? I don't know what to say about that, really. The UN schools were being used a shelters. Why? Something has to be said about that. It seems obvious to me. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. I will note that your reversion is improper. The statement was earlier present in the lead. You removed it, and I reverted to the status quo, actually trying to find a compromise, I shortened it. You removed it again, having no consensus to do so, in fact, the only other person commenting has not agreed with you. If you feel that it should not be present, find consensus, by opening an RfC or some other WP:DR. While discussion goes on, the article should remain the earlier state. See WP:STATUSQUO. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. The article cover the seven incidents in which UN facilities --which should be inviolable during time of armed conflict-- has been affected and resulted in fatalities. The fact of this being an armed conflict and those UN facilities being used to shelter civilians was included in the lead. In your revision you attempted to add that UN facilities were 'converted to temporary shelters' (its designated, and IMO not DUE for the lead, iirc it isn't even mentioned in the article ) and that 'during he 2014 conflict Palestinians were displaced from their homes' - which is a background information on the circumstances of the conflict which you spliced in the middle of defining what the "shelling" were. --Elysans (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that you haven't given any reason as to why it should not be present. Since you do not like my new wording, I have restored the original wording and opened an RfC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Mention of Palestinian displaced in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The above discussion was read and considered in the findings. There is rough consensus for the proposed language. The majority argument referenced MOS:BEGIN as a main argument or followed its logic. WP:WEIGHT was used by the minority, but since the information is in the article, and serves as background information it could not overcome the majority. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the lead include this statement?

During the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, many Palestinians fled their homes after warnings by Israel or due to air strikes or fighting in the area. An estimated 200,000 people (10% of Gaza's population) took shelter in UNRWA schools.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes: A couple of sentences stating why there were people present in the UN schools is important. This is from the "Background" section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also see the discussion here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes A lead should summarize what is else in the article and a short description of the reason they were in the shelters is important. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As Markbassett correctly pointed out, the lead should summarize what in the article, per WP:WEIGHT not by what you deem most important to push into the first paragraph.--Elysans (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• No A WP:Lead should summarize the article and this is not the topic nor that WP:WEIGHT within the article. It might be suitable within the background section if cite is added. Markbassett (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the rockets found in empty schools be removed from the lead as well, since it is not the topic? And the reactions by Israel, US and UN to the attacks? The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The background and reactions section are part of the article, they should be summarized in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a very valid point, Kingsindian. I would also like to add that there is already refs in the Background section about the displacement, though it could be expanded. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• No As noted by Markbassett, the lead should summarize the article per WP:WEIGHT. And the first paragraph in particular should define the topic, this tidbit from the background section is neither on topic nor directly in support\define it.--Elysans (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• No I agree with Markbassett and Elysans. The article is about the shellings of UNRWA shelters, not about the migration of people after a warning of attacks. MOS:BEGIN states that opening paragraph should define the topic without specifics, establish the context, give it a location/time, and establish the boundaries. I do not believe mentioning why there was a migration to these shelters helps with any of these criteria. This information would be better in a "Background" section of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720: I am very puzzled by the reference to MOS:BEGIN. The second sentence states "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." What exactly is that, if not the background? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I thought about the same comment when I was looking at MOS:BEGIN, but there is a difference between "background" and "complete history." Right now the article states, in the sentence preceding the one proposed, that artillery "...struck on or near the UNRWA facilities being used as shelters for Palestinians..." This statement tells the reader that Palestinians were in the UNRWA and that they were used for protection in a temporary capacity. Spending two more sentences stating why some (or most) Palestinians were in the shelters does not help the reader understand the significant background of the issue. Z1720 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't used to define the topic, only embellish it with tangible info (i.e. how many people took shelter in UNRWA schools during the whole conflict) pushed into the first paragraph.--Elysans (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - As it stands, reading the line "facilities being used as shelters for Palestinians" would leave a naive reader asking what the Palestinians were sheltering from. I think the proposal would provide a little context. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Civilians taking shelter at UN facilities during time of armed conflict is confusing? (See bellow in discussion). --Elysans (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Assuming it is factually correct I see no issue with keeping it in the lead. I could see myself objection to other iterations but this is a short and sweet mention. Lucutious (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes as per Kingsindian's comment. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes this is the current content of the lead and it reads well so as to provide a good picture of the human (the main) aspect of the story. GregKaye 10:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The lead is a summary of the article, which cover the seven specific incidents in a specific timeline in which UN facilities --which should be inviolable during time of armed conflict-- has been affected and resulted in fatalities. The lead first paragraph should define the topic, explaining what are those incidents i.e. ~they occurred during time of armed conflict, in which UNRWA facilities sheltering civilians have been hit and the results. Meanwhile the above speaks about the whole conflict, and how many people took shelter in any number of UNRWA's hundreds of facilities. Also it attribute the reason for the people taking shelter to Israel as oppose to the fighting in which two sides took place.--Elysans (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct. There were many UN facilities hit during the conflict. This article states about 75 UNRWA facilities were hit, in a few weeks. I don't know the full number. What makes these incidents (more) notable were that they were schools converted into shelters. The statement being discussed is saying why the schools were sheltering civilians. And it does not blame Israel only. It says "due to warning by Israel, air strikes and fighting in the area". Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't help you understand why using a sentence which highlight only one side practices instead of saying 'due to armed conflict' is an NPOV issue. Also if you would like to challenging the topic of the article being the 'seven incidents', I would refer you to your own answer about notability when i brought up the UN investigation scope. Otherwise please dispense with strawmen arguments, the sentences above are obviously not on topic, especially the second sentence which you keep omitting in your arguments. --Elysans (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Much praise of IDF

Much praise of IDF has been introduced now but it should be balanced with the vast critic against them by NGOs etc. I don't have time right now so I will have to do it later. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If you refer to recent change to the background section. Where it was stated that ~"Israel asserts that it doesn't kill civilians..' and 'justify attacks on civilian objectives..'. The awkward not in source wording, of what Israel doesn't do, has been replaced with what they do. Additionally, to avoid a he said she said and murkiness, I added RS that place these in context of practices worldwide. And while I am familiar with many sources that will criticize Israel any war practice, alas you'll have to show me anyone that would say that Israel is doing less then any other military in similar situation.

P.S I'd appropriate if you refrain from using such section heading, and similar remarks, as it isn't inductive for positive collaboration effort per our little discussion on your talk.--Elysans (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The former wording in the article may have been bad but it does not change that you added much praise and that needs balancing, which was what I was referring to. It is a correct description of what happened, just like if it was the opposite it can be called "much criticism". It can be called "NPOV issue" etc. too but that is not specific enough.

It doesn't matter if Israel is like anyone else, they have gotten vast criticism that needs to be included. They have for example been criticised for their many bombnings of homes and extensive shelling. As I said, I will have to add it later as I can't right now. Both that and other criticism can be found in the main article. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Elysans: Some of your other recent edits are fine, but not the ones you made to the background section. Firstly, I have no idea what this "justsecurity.org" is. From this page, it is just a blog, and the report you added, states explicitly that it is just the personal opinion of the writers. Anyone can write anything about anything. What makes this study worth including? Secondly, the section now is in no way NPOV. It goes on and on about all the care Israel is taking about civilians, and Hamas fighting among civilians and so on. This contrasts with many other reports by human rights organizations which state that Israel's targeting in the Gaza Strip was indiscriminate (see the main 2014 Israel-Gaza article for references), and which by contrast, are notable because they are widely quoted, in contrast to this random study by justsecurity.org. Lastly, this is not an article about the conflict itself. I do not have time to handle it right now, but this won't do. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM:, I have to question your objectivity when you refer to conclusions by studies\sources as "praise". Both sources are assessments of Israel practices in context of worldwide norms, made by people with few credentials. So unless you can provide same studies with different conclusions I am not sure what there is more to add. --Elysans (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, (A) Please be more specific in your comments. I have made about a dozen unrelated edits to the background section and despite your blank\negative comment you address only one.
(B) The papers covers the "Legal and Operational Assessment of Israel's Targeting Practices", which directly support Israel statement at the beginning of the paragraph (i.e. not just assertion). The two LOAC papers published by people with credentials in their professional capacity, while the link is to a summary at 'New York University School of Law' forum for analysis of law and rights.
(C) I haven't seen any report here that contrast the conclusions that Israel went into a great deal to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage, and that those practices are consistent and in many cases beyond world norm. I am aware of the Human rights organizations reports that in their assessment war-crime were committed.(not the same, also it is my understanding that Israel didn't cooperate --i.e. provide information to-- with Human Right watch due to "bias", and thus IMO some of their blockquote statments are suspect) --Elysans (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your additions made it unbalanced and it doesn't matter if it is studies or something else and additionally, you are putting conditions to what type of criticism can be added. It is not only about adding "assessments of Israel practices in context of worldwide norms". General criticism belongs here too. It is a highly discussed topic and that includes the 2014 war.

It includes reports etc. from B'Tselem or Amnesty that are relevant to an article that deals with a part of that war. To exclude that is not neutral or factual at all. Nothing says this is only about looking if Israel is best or worst etc. in the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added info now that deals with Israeli policies and tactics during the war. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Lead summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead include this statement?

The incidents occurred during the Israeli-Gaza armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place.

For Example:

The 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters were seven shellings at UNRWA facilities in the Gaza Strip which took place between 21 July and 3 August 2014. The incidents occurred during the Israeli-Gaza armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place. The incidents were the result of artillery, mortar or aerial missile fire which struck on or near the UNRWA facilities being used to shelter civilians, and as a result at least 44 civilians, including 10 UN staff died.

Notes:

• All seven incidents occurred during a time of an armed conflict. The directly hit facilities are located within the the three-kilometer "buffer zone" --in which IDF and Palestinian militants clashed on the ground-- which suffered the brunt of the damage.
• Numerous sources, including the UN report state that fighting occurred "near" most of the facilities during the time frame covered in the article. For example: In the case of Beit Hanoun shelter, where the area surrounding the school was "particularly dangerous and, as hostilities intensified, the entire area was exposed to fierce combat"; In the case of Jabalia shelter "In the days prior to the incident, armed clashes between militants and the IDF were talking place in the east". In Zaitoun "In the evening, the shelling gained in intensity in the immediate vicinity of the school, where militant activity was also noted." ..
• How near/far the fighting took place is contested. The UN report note that "none of the witnesses who had testified to UNRWA had been aware of any activity by militant groups in the school or in its "vicinity"". For example: locals "stated that there was no militant activity in the school or in its close vicinity, though one stated that she had heard rockets not far from the school"
• In the UN report the incidents described as occurring, "in a situation of armed conflict and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place." [5]

Elysans (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support - The addition helps to define\summarize\introduce the 7 incidents covered in the article in a concise and clear way, that stand on its own, and without prejudice.

Noting the fact that that incidents occurred during an armed conflict provide context, which explaining the shellings in the article and why civilians took shelter in UNRWA facilities; While using proximity --like the wording in the UN report -- allows us to summarize the content of article in a natural way without prejudice toward either side POV )--Elysans (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - gives the event which is the subject of this article context.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Searching for "UN Report Gaza April" on Google brings up the following news reports in reliable sources on the first two pages:

Oppose Kingsindian's comment made my decision clear. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per Elysans &

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32479271
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/27/israel-responsible-gaza-strikes-un-schools-ban-ki-moon
• http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.653835
• http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50705#.VWn5PkZoFQA
• http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/227E4E2B941E947C85257E3800498A89
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/world/middleeast/un-says-israeli-military-actions-killed-44-civilians-in-schools-in-gaza-war.html
• http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/27/u_n_report_on_civilian_deaths_in_gaza_united_nations_says_israel_knew_schools.html
• http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/69238-150427-un-report-israel-responsible-for-gaza-shelter-attacks
• http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/04/28/Report-Israeli-struck-UN-shelters-during-Gaza-war/6771430234225/
• https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=765116
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4651245,00.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3057906/Israel-responsible-Gaza-shelter-attacks-UN.html

Not even one of them quote "and, in some but not all cases, in close proximity to where intense fighting was taking place" or write something like that. So its inclusion here is WP:UNDUE.

By the way, if that part of the statement is going to be here, it should be paraphrased or quotation marks should be added because it is copied from the report. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is a discussion here about this. The UN report (and indeed other reports, like the Human Rights Watch report) makes clear that in almost all cases, by witness statements, there was no fighting in or near the area where the attacks took place. The paragraph numbers for the UN report are all present in the link I gave above. To include a statement like this in the lead, emphasizing "fighting in close proximity" which is only one sentence in the report (it is actually not in the UN report, which has not been released, but is in the UN secretary general's remarks about the report), when the opposite is the case, is totally UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per user Kingsindian comment above. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Kingsindian's comment. LavaBaron (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support/oppose: It's important for context that this happened during a wider during an armed conflict; but Kingsindian has it right with regard to the proximity claims - an official's off-hand comment about a report that isn't even released yet isn't a reliable source, and it's contradicted by too many other sources. I.e., the edit in question is addressing two severable claims, one of which is supportable and relevant, the other not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Elysans & RightCowLeftCoast --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Elysans & necessary context.--Averysoda (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150527082044/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DD595E6EC861F04585257D2D0057216C to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DD595E6EC861F04585257D2D0057216C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810171100/http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/68a77da9833c91cf85257d2a0067b495?OpenDocument to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/68a77da9833c91cf85257d2a0067b495?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914032827/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/international/gaza-militant-leader-dies-in-strike-1.505361 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/international/gaza-militant-leader-dies-in-strike-1.505361

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

war crimes

adding this article to Category:Israeli war crimes? Kian evan (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

adding to category israel war crimes Kian evan (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)