Jump to content

Talk:2012 Gaza War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

NPOV (everything about NPOV goes here)

Unacceptable Bias

I made additions to the opening paragraph to complement the Israeli view, and they were removed 'because they were not neutral'! What is neutral about this article right now? It is unacceptable to remove facts backed up by reputable news sources because certain editors on here insist that this article be biased against the Palestinians. I demand a reasonable explanation concerning the removal of these two edits. The sources are reputable and back up the content, the formatting is fine, it is necessary to convey the other side's view:

This encyclopaedia must not be allowed to become a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The second of these is not my edit, but was removed for 'violating neutrality'. So now we can't even mention the victims of this attack? It is a statement of fact not an opinion. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the deaths are of notable figures, we do not go into details for the deaths of people on either side. It's completely WP:undue weight. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why are "unkown name" people listed as being killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

for the israeli ambassador leaving Cairo suddenly,it is a fact,and the egyptian government spoke man said that israel has violated an egyptian brokered truce,is also a fact . Alhanuty (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is no mention made of the 300+ targets that the IDF has destroyed inlcuding a UAV program, and Fajr5 missle depots? This article seems to only care about people killed when the entire point of the military action is to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel since Oct 24th http://en.rian.ru/world/20121114/177463736.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the point of this military operation is not to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel. The point is to try to stop more rockets from being launched -- that is by destroying the sources of these rockets. The rockets that have already been fired are presumably exploded or lying around on the ground.... to destroy them, you'd send in a bomb squad or something. No airstrikes needed.

Terrorists or Militants

I'm pretty sure there is a Wikipedia policy about this, but should we use militants instead of terrorists when referring to people fighting in the conflict? Dhawk790 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We should use terrorist, provided it is sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for Israeli propaganda. We should stay neutral. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Militant seems more neutral, but still has negative connotations. Per WP:TERRORIST, we need to have in-text attribution when using the term "terrorist". But it's best to not use it at all, for the sake of avoiding edit wars. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the term "militant" sounds just as bad as "terrorist" and is also inaccurate and misleading. Hamas, claiming to be the legally constituted Palestinian government, should have their forces referred to as "soldiers." We wouldn't call IDF forces "Israeli militants." By further comparison, in the entry FARC, FARC fighters are referred - in several places - as "FARC Soldiers." That said, I wouldn't object to calling non-Hamas Gaza-based forces and independent operators, like the Popular Resistance Committee, as "militants." BlueSalix (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
However the term "soldier" holds several implications (some of them codified into int'l law) that afaik don't apply to Hamas fighters, like being organized into a regular army with identifiable uniform and rank, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.68.212 (talk • contribs)

this article has to stay neutral,and propaganda can't be accepted at all only facts are,and nobody are to write in favor of any side Alhanuty (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

by the way using the term terrorist is very pro-israel,i agree with the term militant or using the term Hamas fighters .Alhanuty (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The term terrorist is not pro-Israel. Is referring to al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization Pro-US? It would only be pro-Israel if we referred to the people as terrorists and the media hadn't. That being said, I'm willing to accept militants as a compromise. Ryan Vesey 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
How about fighters? I think that's more neutral than militant. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Plenty of sources use the term militants and indeed terrorists. Secondly, fighters is an inaccurate term since it connotes two active participants, which is not the case with the rocket fire directed at Israeli civilians. Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a contentious label (WP:TERRORIST), especially considering that Hamas was democratically elected, and are the current government. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
So terrorist organization can't be elected though popular vote? History and logic might disagree with you. Also while hamas was democratically elected, they also made a little armed coup, overthrowing the Palestinian security forces and the other party members. Which is why atm the Palestinians have two presidents, the Hamas in Gaza who are shooting rockets on civilian population in Israel and the PA in the west bank, who recently built the first Palestinian city and working toward recognition through diplomatic means.--Mor2 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think the Israelis are the terrorists. Is it pro-Hamas? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the bottom line is that the article has to stay neutral . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the word terrorist shouldn't be used at all . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should be labelled as terrorists (or freedom fighters), there can be no compromise on this. I believe soldiers to be technically incorrect to describe Palestinian fighters, I think forces, such as "Hamas forces launched..." would be optimal, or perhaps "armed forces"/"armed forces member", militant is okay, but sub-optimal. Sepsis II (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Hamas forces sounds the most neutral. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

nordon 1990 i meant the using of the word terrorist on Hamas Alhanuty (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The word terrorist doesn't belong in this article, unless it's clearly being used to express the opinion of an explicitly named source. Something like "IDF Spokesman Example McExampleson said that IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," would be acceptable (if it had a source confirming it of course.) Something like "IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," as a statement of fact would not be. We don't even call al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden terrorists; we just say they have been described as such by particular groups. I think militant would be okay although not ideal, as would fighters. I don't think Hamas' forces generally meet the criteria to be described as soldiers (and they aren't generally described as such in reliable sources,) although I do have some qualms about describing members of an official wing of the ruling government of a territory as militants. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about militant vs. terrorist, but I don't even get why it's an argument when both terms objectively describe Hamas. (See Terrorism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hamas is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Therefore, refering to Hamas members as "terrorists" is accurate. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just the united States, the European Union too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Militant is appropriate throughout the article, with terrorist used where directly quoted. Strongly oppose attempts to water this article down by using terms like "HAMAS Forces". They are clearly militants at the very least and numerous sources use that term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

According to international law, armed resistance against an occupying force is legal. Hamas has killed civilians, IDF has killed more. Were they specifically targeted? We cannot tell and thus the term 'terrorist' should be out of the question. Bauey (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh you absolutely can tell. The relative paucity of female casualties strongly indicates who is being targetted. Women generally dont fight.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Forces is definitely best word to use to avoid reader confusion and WP edit wars and only when a specific term or phrase is used in some important quote or context should more controversial terms be used. CarolMooreDC 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes "against an occupying force" not civilians. We call hamas terrorist not for attacking Israeli military, but for targeting civilian population. while civilian casualties are mounting on both sides, there is a huge difference between unfortunate collateral damage to civilian life and intentional targeting them. If Israel has been targeting civilian population like the hamas, we wouldn't be speaking about dozens of victims but tens of thousands(after all simple explosive shells are much much cheaper than precision strikes)--Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because civilians are the primary target doesn't mean that either forces are terrorists. Armies have attacked civilian populations throughout history, but for different reasons. Hamas may have been labelled "terrorists" by several major world powers, but Gaza had continually targeted Israel for over a decade, despite a 6-month cease-fire. In addition, it's been made clear that Hamas has been allied with PIJ and PLFP in this conflict, and any question of individual affiliation on their end is hard to quantify. Jscorp (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag. The article currently presents exactly the POV of the Israeli military. Many facts have been removed along with the reliable sources provided. These facts are not even included as "Palestinian opinion but removed completely. Check edit history for constant and obvious Israeli military soapboxing. Mr G (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, explain what part of the article is not neutral. The article presents the exact POV of the IDF? Prove it. I think the article is well-balanced — using sources from Israel, the Arab world, and the West. It presents a wide range of international opinions on the conflict and a reasonably neutral chronology of events.
It is absolutely essential that we assume good faith here. Please don't accuse the editors here of soapboxing without good evidence. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
POV is a serious issue. If you see something specific that strikes you as POV, please inform use, so we can discuss how to fix it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In response to all three comments above, there are several times when I came across the article when it mentioned Israeli casualties, but not Palestinians. It would also refer to Israeli civilians, but not to Palestinian civilians. There was a point where the article elaborated on how schools in Israel were shut down, but stayed mum on the effects of the Israeli bombings. There is (or was) a concerted effort to show that 100% of all Israeli actions are "retaliation" or "in response", and that implies Palestine is the one starting this. There is bias in the article, and the evidence is that nearly everyone on the Palestinian side gets referred to as "terrorist" at one point or another, and someone has to come along and fix this. While some efforts are there to correct this bias, it is more often the case that the article is pro-Israel biased than it is neutral. I suggest locking the article if this continues, and to semi-protect it in the mean time Unflavoured (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Locking the page would be totally counterproductive. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I will suggest semi-protection, so that IPs and SPAs can chill for a while. Most of the POV-pushing seems to come from IPs. Unflavoured (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
So is there any consensus to keep the tag on the page? Ryan Vesey 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to discuss specific language issues first and then, if no consensus is easily reached, to add the POV tag. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the tag, until a reasonable amount of editors can concur that it is neutral. As an example of bias: The second paragraph in the lead tells us that Palestinians fired 300 rockets into Israel. It does not tell us how many bombs Israel dropped, or even how many raids it conducted. The paragraph after it tells us that some countries condemn Israel's operation, but some countries condemn Palestinian actions... with the added "Israel has a right to defend itself." I am not going to go through every paragraph pointing out bias, but the picture is clear. And no, I cannot fix it all by myself, especially when the article is not protected at all, and is currently attracting tonnes of edits. Why remove the POV tag when the POV is obvious and provable ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When a country takes action against a terrorist organization, of course that country is going to look better. If you feel like we haven't written enough about Israeli actions, then the article is incomplete, not POV laden. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And how do you complain about the second paragraph? It precedes the statement you referred to with "the IDF killed 16 Palestinians, including 8 civilians". Ryan Vesey 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unflavored, the second paragraph begins with the casualty count of of the Israeli bombings. I don't see bias. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that no mention of Israeli raids/bombings/methods is there, while it is very explicit with the Palestinian side is doing. Just because Palestinian casualties are mentioned first, does not mean that this removes the bias. Unflavoured (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You removed the POV tag, after only 1 hour of it being added, when there are two editors saying it is POV and two saying it is not ?! This is not how consensus is reached. And worse, you removed the POV tag whilst in the midst of the discussion. Unflavoured (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you reread. You were the only editor who said there was POV. With FutureTrillionaire asking for evidence, Jprg1966 saying he didn't see bias and mentioning that the tag should be added if consensus was that POV existed, and I have failed to find any POV. If consensus can be found that there is POV, the tag can be restored. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Follow your own advice and re-read. It was not I who added the POV tag, or created this section. Your decision to ride rough-shod over my voice and remove the tag even though we were clearly not done discussing it is not civil. A POV tag does not need consensus to be added, but it does need consensus to be removed. The article has blatant POV issues. I am going to assume good faith and say that you were not aware that more than one user sees the article as being biased. Now you are aware. Act accordingly. Unflavoured (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list:

  • The lead says number of missiles fired into Gaza is "300+", but not the number of airstrikes made by Israelis. I'm not sure that airstrikes/rockes should even be mentioned when there are no casualties, since it is easy to deny or invent numbers for missiles that don't hurt anyone.
Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say "insignificant". read again. Mr G (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
What - you only want to list attacks that kills somebody? How is that NPOV? That would make Israel's claim to target infrastructure look false, and also diminish the apparent rocket threat by Hamas.
  • Partisan Israeli sources like "algemeiner.com" and "Israeli National News" are included while equivalent Palestinian sources (I think much more reliable, at least equally reliable) like "pchrgaza.org" and "maannews.net" have been removed along with the claims that they make.
I think this can be addressed in the context of specific edits/changes like the one you mentioned below regarding the 13 year old. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This point alone is sufficient to render this article unacceptably biased and therefore unreliable and a form of Israeli misinformation and propoganda --130.88.84.38 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The section name "Background" is euphemistic. It was improved, then reverted.
  • The "Background" section begins with "Rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel continually throughout 2012." This is a clear attempt to imply that Palestinians "started it". An accurate way to begin would be to state the number of civilian casualties on BOTH SIDES for the preceding month. (I'm guessing zero, and first civilian casualties in November were Palestinians on November 5 and November 8)
I don't think anything is intended by it other than providing a general background. I think it's better than a recitation of specific rocket attacks on a daily basis. Also, the first sentence of the article/lead says that the operation was launched with the IDF assassination of Jabari. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Partisan claims from "Israeli National News" are stated as fact such as the unverifiable claim that a rocket hit Israel on November 4, hurting nobody. *Reliably sourced Palestinian POV on the November 5 and November 8 attacks have been removed. The wording of the Israeli military claims have been changed so that they are now stated as fact. For example, the Israeli that the 13 year old was killed when troops were "returning fire" is stated as fact, where as the Palestinian claim that the boy was playing soccer, for which there a multiple sources, is not even stated as opinion, and all the sources were removed. Ludicrous fringe claims like that the militants were using the 13 year old as a "human shield" are included, while believable claims by Palestinians witnesses have been removed.
It looks like this was fixed. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This fact, sourced from the BBC, was removed "An Israeli strike on November 15th resulted in the death of the 11-month old son of a BBC Arabic World Service cameraman in Gaza City."
This also looks fixed, although perhaps more detail can be added in the casualty section. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely, this is is anti-Israel POV? The article is a pure propaganda piece, and we only have their (unfounded) claim that it was an Israeli round.
  • The language is POV too. Hamas is described as a "regime".
I can't edit it, but I agree that the word regime should be dropped. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
By now the word regime is not in the article. Inkbug (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of the material in the lead comes from Algemeiner and Jerusalem Post. None of the material comes from equivalent Palestinian news outlets. Mr G (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I just reread the lead and I don't think it says anything controversial. I can't edit it, but if this is an issue, I'm sure you can find everything there in third party sources. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The statement in the lead that the Israeli airstrikes "targeted dozens of rocket launching pads, weapons depots and facilities" is the official IDF position, so the lead is effectively being used as Israeli military press release. Mr G (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this factually incorrect? Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a verified fact. It is official Israeli position. Palestinians argue the military is targeting civilians, since most people killed have been civilians, including two children. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the civilian targeting bit is clearly false. A military superpower like Israel doing hundreds of attacks on densely populated areas with poor infrastructure, and what, 20 civlians killed so far? It'd be nice to cite a third party analysis, though.

I'm too tired to keep going, knowing that in the past such NPOV fixes have been temporary and quickly returned to Israeli POV, but here are a list of sources that have been removed:

Reliable sources for factual statements that have been removed:

Notable opinions:

The above articles from electronicintifada.net are blogs, so don't qualify to be used as factual sources, but it is illustrative to the failing of U.S. media that no timeline of comparable accuracy and has been produced by any of our American "reliable sources" or even by the BBC. These timelines in my opinion are highly accurate and balanced, but it highly unlikely that Israeli militants will agree. In any case they should at least be included as "Palestinian claims" and some of the claims should be placed in an "media criticism" section.

Mr G (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The POV-pushing by IP continues: [1]. This should be enough to convince anyone that this article has serious POV issues. This page seriously needs semi-protection. Unflavoured (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
From my skim of the article as it now stands, it looks like the issues have been addressed. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of them have. Most of them haven't. Try re-reading my list and double checking the article. For each improvement, other things have been changed for the worse, so I will continue adding items to the list. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the Arutz Sheva link is only being used to justify the article title as it stands. It's not being relied upon for a neutral account of the chronology. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Houses in Israel were destroyed and schooles were closed as of Oct 24th 2012. The Fact that Israelis were able to reach bomb shelters quickly enough and not get killed is not a reason to ignore the events. Ignoring this makes the article a joke. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That attack was separated from the current conflict for cease fire which lasted for about 10 days, and which was broken by the Israelis on November 5 and followed by a second attack on November 8. Rocket fire from the Palestinian side recommenced sometime after November 5 and before November 10, so the current conflict begins on November 5. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to second the part about ignoring rocket attacks or airstrikes just because there were no casualties. Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What cease fire? There were rocket attacks on Oct 24, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and Nov 4th. There is no 10 day period from Oct 24th that a cease fire existed. This is blatant bias and POV. Oct 30th even has a recording first use of a 45KM range missile from Gaza beign fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012#October For any factual claim of a cease fire to be made, both sides need to actually cease their firing! Such an event NEVER took place since the 80 rocket bombardment on Oct 24th. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wat is the source for the November 4 claim? Mr G (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There definitely seems to have been a spike in drama on 5 November, with the shooting of the man at the border and the roadside bomb that struck the Israeli soldiers. As it stands now, the article mentions the rocket fire in October as a lead-up to the 5 November incident. I don't see a blatant bias against Israel. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You can read the wiki article I pointed to and follow the sources if you need. There was a spike in Drama in late october when schools in Bear Sheva were closed and the Mayor complained that they were told to act normal. The events in October is what lead to the creation of operation pillar of defense, not the events in November. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4297621,00.html Or perhaps it was Oct 30th when a first time long range rocket was shot at Demona, where Israel's nuclear research is. (google chrome translates the page into English) http://www.mivzaklive.co.il/archives/41865 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is not biased as claimed. The POV tag should be removed. Its not possible for everyone to be entirely happy with everything in the article on something like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In its current state, I would not call this article NPOV. As one example: it's mentioned in two places in the article that Israeli schools near Gaza have been closed. It's not mentioned anywhere that all UN schools in Gaza have also been closed, despite this being mentioned in numerous RS'es. This is far from the only example where information about how Israelis have been effected is included whereas comparable information about how Palestinians have been effected has not been included. Even if all of the Israeli information is accurate and belongs in the article, the omission of the same information about Palestinians creates a POV problem. I'll probably fix an occasional such thing as I see it, but don't have the willpower to get in to the shitslinging match that trying to balance this article would inevitably end up turning in to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's blatantly POV. Very few of the issues I raised above have been fixed, and in many ways the article has gotten worse. The second sentence of the lead is directly stating the Israeli military press release as fact. The removal of the tag is in itself proof of the huge Israeli bias here, since the tag only states that NPOV is in "dispute" which it clearly evident here on the talk page. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree, stating the Israeli position as fact and ignoring any other viewpoints is entirely inconsistent with WP:NPOV a core policy of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree that the removal of the NPOV tag is proof of Israeli bias. As already discussed this could have been done by somebody who has not understood the rules in relation to removing the NPOV tag and we must assume good faith.
Even if the second sentence of the lead is the Israeli military press release, I do not believe this implicitly makes the article non NPOV. The page is called "Operation Pillar of Cloud", which is Israel's name for the operation. I would assert that adding Israel's stated intention within the lead, helps to clarify the Israeli position on the matter and provide context for the reader. This does not imply that the Israeli operation is moral or justified, just gives clarity as to why Israel has began the operation.
I do agree that there could potentially be more of the Palestinian viewpoint discussed within the lead, however instead of simply stating that this article is in breach of the NPOV rules, good faith should be assumed and the Palestinians POV could be enhanced by adding additional sources.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards
Sirkus (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Almost every time someone adds anything that the Israeli contributors don't like, they remove it. View the article's history. This encyclopedia has become a joke. --130.88.84.38 (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gregcaletta's concerns are very legitimate.--Severino (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rockets were fired into Israel BEFORE this event, the fact you seem to be suggesting the article is biased wthout somehow making this the "starting point" highlights that the current POV tag is unjustified. The article is not biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Source please. And how does that justify killing a child playing football? --130.88.52.213 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Read carefully - it is biased because that information was removed for no valid reason - much like a lot of other valid information was removed despite being relevant, encyclopaedic and well sourced. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Berated versus Condemned

In the International Reactions section, it was stated that Egypt and Iran berated the Israeli actions when the more appropriate verb condemned should have been used. "Berated" delivers the message that both countries have no right in criticizing the Israeli bombings and that their stance stems from an emotional point of view Asaifm (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What? Sovereign nations do not have a right to express an opinion on major military actions? I trust you will criticise the US for passing comment as well. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I support these countries and that's why I don't prefer the use of the word berated. As for the US reaction phrasing, I find it much more neutral than that of Egypt and Iran Asaifm (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Berate and condemn mean the same thing in this context; they're synonyms, like begin and commence. One comes from Old English and the other comes from Latin, that's all. However, for consistency we should use the same wording for everyone. ~Asarlaí 21:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Add a couple of paragraphs to the Reaction Section

I would like to add the following paragraphs to update reaction sections of Egypt and the United Nations. Asaifm (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
For the United Nations:

On 19 November, Ban Ki-moon visited Cairo to discuss with the Egyptian President the current state of conflict and the efforts made to cease fire. It will be followed by a visit on Tuesday to the Israeli Prime Minister in Jerusalem to stop the operation expansion. Ban will end his Middle East tour by heading to the West Bank, Ramallah to meet the Palestinian president.[1][2]

For Egypt:

On 17 November, the Arab Medical Union has sent a delegation of Egyptian doctors with aids across the Rafah border.[3] And on 19 November, a group of Egyptian civilians headed to Gaza to aid their Palestinian neighbors in their current tribulation.[4]
I would like to add a row in the table for the Arab League too:
On 20 November, a selected delegation from the Arab League, led by Nabil Elaraby, will be visiting Gaza in solidarity with the Palestinians and to facilitate the efforts of ceasing fire.[5]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Asaifm (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Media Misrepresentation is biased and should be divided into two sections

The Media Misrepresentation section covers only the Israeli side. I would like to see another subsection covering the Israeli allegations against the Palestinians and how they were refuted. An example can be found in this reference.[6] Asaifm (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Media Misrepresentation is biased and and others

OMG , This article is heavily Pro-Israel , the vast majority of sources are related to Israeli media or personel.sourcing international and arab media is scanty. Some points:

1-Why "Hamas executions of Palestinians" made as a major and first part of Palestinian casualities.This has no relation in direct way to the conflict and it is by far less than the casualities because of Israeli airstrikes,it should be in another section . 2-In the analysis section under Palestinian casualities , the source is Israeli "which should be seen as biased" as it is not neutral , then this statement to make it looks awful "Col. Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, said: "The use of the civilian population by Hamas is undoubtedly a war crime because not only are they hiding themselves under a civilian population, [but] they are also putting the civilian population at risk. In my view, if there are civilian casualties, the responsibility does not lie with the IDF, but with Hamas, who deliberately placed them there" , this article should not be commenting on the actions , it should only mention FACTS with relaible sources ,or otherwise there are a lot of Arabic and international who are codemning many things Israeli did in this conflict,so it should be removed or other opposing analysis of the other side added.

3-The section "Media misrepresentation" SHOULD be removed as it is OVERLY one sided in favor of Israel . 4-Lack of Gazan innocent/elderly/women/children dead and wounded pictures , no single one !!

Just to give more evidence to what I am saying : quick search of Word Israeli=572 , Plaestinian "150" those meant to be referring to Israeli/Palesinian (media,casuality,representative).

I think this article should be deleted as it seems it is hacked again by CAMERA and other Pro-Israeli media.

Thanks ,, Cutedoctor (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate

Why does the lede picture show just the effects of Hamas rockets? This is completely non-neutral. What we need is a picture that shows the affected areas in both Israel and Gaza. Anything else is one-sided and not appropriate.

For that matter, why does every picture, bar one, have to do with the effects of Hamas' rockets? What about all the damage and far more deaths and injuries caused by Israel's bombing? Seriously, until this is fixed and the images evened out, we should remove most of the Israel images. SilverserenC 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see neither type of pictures, especially not the Hamas made(death shouldn't be use as PR tool). I'd prefer if someone can acquire/make maps similiar to the one in this link [2] which would be far more informative, giving a refernce point to the event in the text. --Mor2 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I entirely disagree, it is totally appropriate for the map to show gaza and the ranges of the rocket fire. That is exactly what this whole article is about. It provides useful information. no objection to additional images showing the impact of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza throughout the article though. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mor2. Until then, I think the current map is OK as it at least shows the entire area of hostilities. And I don't think the pictures are too one-sided, but I do agree there is some imbalance and that there should probably be a picture of a destroyed building in Gaza. Capscap (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the users editing this page in favor of the Israeli narrative are literally being paid to do this by the Hasbara department within the Israeli foreign ministry.

the Wiki admins do not care about neutrality, just who has the most numbers.

--Savakk (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Without accusing admins of bias, I do agree that a more neutral picture should be used for the infobox. What it's showing is the highlighting of areas in southern Israel that come within the range of various types of Hamas rockets and the caption reads "areas affected by the conflict." The Gaza Strip, where the overwhelming majority of the casualties have been is not even highlighted. For now or until a more fitting picture could be found, the current infobox picture should be replaced with a map simply depicting southern Israel and the Gaza Strip. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I have added that map. The previous map was of gaza alone, this one show both locations and is far more informative, providing reference to the information discussed in the article. What can I say I am no rocket experts or Israel geographer and it helps me. If you have a better map please suggest it in the infobox section above. (Also the initial caption included "gaza" but someone removed it as NPOV thing. I guess you can't appease everyone) --Mor2 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Savakk, do you have any reliable sources to verify these accusations, or is it a gut feeling because when all facts are presented you don't like the picture it paints? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomæd; Israel doesn´t hide they have tons of people active on wikipedia to change objective information. You can watch on youtube a video of people active in "hasbarah" ("Israeli propaganda") workshops explaining in an interview how they manipulate articles to their zionist point of views. It´s no secret.Tijs schelstraete (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Link? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Tijs, Savakk said that "A lot of the users editing this page in favor of the Israeli narrative are literally being paid to do this by the Hasbara department within the Israeli foreign ministry" which is his opinion. As an Israeli, I can tell you with full confidence that many edits are made by people who actually care about adding facts, or sometimes even showing the Israeli side when they feel like there is a bias issue (which in turn can create more bias to the other side, and I don't contest that). I also haven't heard about Israel "admitting of having tons of people active on Wikipedia". Even if that is the case, there is absolutely no way to conclude that any edits that a person with anti-Israeli bias might dislike was made as propaganda or was being paid for it. And in general, "Hasbara" is Explanation or Explaining, and the goal is to present the Israeli side of the story to the world that is very often very anti-Israeli (at least in some parts), not to spew out propaganda, lie or make stuff up. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added some well-sourced criticism of Israel's PR efforts related to Operation Pillar of Defense. Specifically, some opinions from reliable sources about their twitter campaign and some about the gamification of the IDF blog. The criticism is well-sourced and I believe of appropriate weight. Feel free to reword it as you feel necessary, but please do not remove it completely without prior discussion on the talk page. (I could add in another dozen high quality sources issuing significant criticism of this aspect of operation pillar of defense. I haven't done so because that seems like it would just be source-stacking... but given how much criticism is being published in reliable sources about it, I think it would be a significant POV issue to not include a mention of it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but I am surprised that you manged to write more on IDF effort to provide legitimate information about its actions, than presented on the Palestinian fabrications and cynical use of dead for PR purpose.--Mor2 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to present encyclopedic information that has been relayed by reliable sources. There's a bunch of criticism in reliable sources of Israel's PR efforts, thus they should have a decent sized section here. If you feel the section dealing with Hamas' apparent media deceptions isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to find some reliable sources and expand it in a neutral way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This article will never reach NPOV because there are Israelis dedicating themselves to keeping it biased. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

"How dare they show pictures of the dozens of children and civilians we've killed, that's complete propaganda".

Oh really? That's the logic you're going with? Israel actively trying to lie and twist it's deliberate actions to make it's war crimes and attacks seem okay is perfectly acceptable but you've got a problem with Palestinians showing news agencies the people Israel has killed?

DON'T KILL ANY MORE CIVILIANS and the problem is solved. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

See, this is a great example of one sided POV and explicit bias. Thank you for the demonstration. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Hello all,
I'am a leading contributor in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps. I noticed the following maps and encourage you to keep the 2 first within the article since they are complementary. The first show the threat of Gaza over Israeli territories (Israel POV), the 2nd show the threat of Israel over Gaza territories (Gaza POV). Also, both maps are need to avoid a One-Sided narrative. Last, the 3rd (and 1st one) are heavily biaised and manipulative graphic representation of information since qualitative information is represented without quantitative information. Also, please take these maps cautiously.

Cheer, Yug (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How is a map pertaining to damage during the 2008 war relevant to this article? Ankh.Morpork 10:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Fit in the background section with UN checked facts, qualitative AND quantitative ones, in an easy to understand graphic representation of the 2008 (previous) similar war. Yug (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The first map doesnt show the threat of Gaza, it show the effected territories in the current conflict i.e. Gaza and the areas withing Israel, which are discussed within the article. If we wanted to "show the threat of Gaza over Israeli territories" we would use the third, which is very informative regarding to the type of current threats mentioned in the article(not all of us rocket scientist or understand what 40km into israel means). The second Image show a map from 2008, Gaza war and has nothing todo with article.--Mor2 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Mor2 I notice you made 90% of your 200 edits on Israelo-Arab conflict. Your edits pattern indicate you are an experienced user with a new account. For transparency, may you state your former account name?
Map 1: Let's move on the file:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense.png you designed. Since you design maps, you should have some understanding of the design of information, the meaning of color and color ramp, and than every map is a POV selection. On your map, you repeat from your source(?) the range of Gaza missiles (qualitative information), without any numbers of attacks (quantitative information). There is no display of the range of Israeli weapon, which cover all Gaza, Egypt, and even reach Iran, not display of troups (quantitative), or Israeli shelling of Gaza. Knowing that 60 Gaza people and 3 Israeli people have been killed so far, we can frankly question your map making neutrality. Yet, this map --without source-- is in front page (lead section).
Map 2: As I said, is solidely fact based (qualitative and qantitative), sourced. It indeed fit in the background section with its UN checked facts in an easy to understand graphic representation of the 2008 (previous) similar war, with a focus on Gaza. Yug (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Map1: 1. Don't put words in my moth, you can see what I said about the map in the infobox section above. 2. If you have a better color selection, please suggest it. 3. Like I said this map is not about weapons, but the territories effected in this conflict, we have Gaza in the middle and the territories in Israelis that are effected. What you say about weapon range, make no sense at all, what does it matter if Israeli weapons can get to iran?! will gaza be any more effected? The article discuss Gaza and the areas in israel which are effect and those areas are highlighted.(with the largest population center marked, both in gaza and Israel).--Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Map2: no one ever questioned it's validity only its relevance. --Mor2 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Map1, refocus : According to your legend, your subject is Gaza weapons and their range affecting Israelis. Not a single word about Israeli weapons, army, their range, and their effect on Gaza/others. [Iran was as you understood an example to display the far larger firepower of Israel.
Map2: yes, yes, the previous 2008 shelling is relevant to the current 2012 shelling (both sides). Yug (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a crude synthesis of past events to the current conflict. It does not portray what is currently taking place and is misleading. Ankh.Morpork 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Map1, I think someone have addressed the issues you had(see map caption). If not can you please synthesize your complains into practical suggestion of what you want todo.--Mor2 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
@Mor2: Ok, fair enough, you propose a constructive way. So I can stop my 'anti pro-israeli' push, and let move toward a new map. See below. Yug (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need two maps (ideally given equal weighting in the article). Gaza is much more densely populated than south Israel and has been receiving the bulk of the casualties and damage. Any map that is detailed enough to give a meaningful representation of the attacks on Gaza will not be able to cover the areas of Israel subject to attacks. On the other hand any map (such as the current one in the lead) that is scaled to show all of the areas of Israel subject to attack will not be detailed enough to give a meaningful representation of the attacks on Gaza. Thus, the solution: Two maps. See for instance the BBC's maps of the violence. Dlv999 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This a good idea. --Mor2 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a compromise [3] it show areas effected by the conflict, it mention all the major settlements(and still somewhat readable at 300px) and it had the legend removed to avoid NPOV issues.--Mor2 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Still suggests that everywhere in Israel within range is a target, still only suggests that places in Israel are targets. That is clearly biased, and so unacceptable here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain exactly which element of that map, makes you feel that it "suggests that everywhere in Israel within range is a target" ? --Mor2 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

For the gathering of sources for a better map / graphics, see section below. Yug (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

False edit summary

User:Mor2 deleted sourced content and said "not said in the source". The content in question was "one UN report stated the blockade was illegal". The source clearly says "Restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."

Can Mor2 explain his actions?VR talk 04:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, in the article text you state "UN report stated the blockade was illegal", Which I was unable to verify in the source you provided [4] the word 'illegal' is shown once in relation to "fishers illegally crossing into Egyptian", the word 'Israel' or 'Israeli' is shown 14 times, none of which in the same sentence as blockade and illegal(or its derivtivs). So your claim is un supported, you have decided to paraphrase or add some conclusion of your own.
Also for the future, if you ask that someone explain his actions, it would make sense to post something on their talk page, so they know about it and can address your concerns, thank you. --Mor2 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"violation of international humanitarian law" seems to be interchangeable with illegal here. Would you prefer "illegal under international law"? Capscap (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"illegal" is short for "violation of international humanitarian law". Of course, I have decided to paraphrase! It is encouraged.VR talk 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That is acceptable.--Mor2 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Though after reading it again I have several questions. What is this document and who wrote it? is part of some report? Because in the caption it says "With technical support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)" and its source stated as "Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO)". However I couldn't find any such publication at the FAO publications, furthermore it does resemble the structure of any of the other official publications there. All references to it, directed at UNISPAL(UN Information System on the Question of Palestine)
So I am questioning its validity, is it an official publication? is it by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.(might make sense as it only discuss and base its conclusion on the Agriculture aspects). If so why would this document from 2010, by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, represented as the UN official position, considering that in 2011 an official publication from the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry, stated it is legal.[5].--Mor2 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not within the remit of wiki editors to challenge RS of this order by questioning who wrote them. If the document is from Unispal, and sourced to FAO, you can't say the former is invalid because you cannot find the primary document in FAO files (i.e. you are trying to challenge a reliable source by denying it reported correctly a primary source in it). That means you don't understand wiki policy, and you are exceeding your rights in removing, without discussion, sources that meet normal standards of verification. Using the talk page for consensus before making unilateral, and highly questionable edits involving the removal of such RS material is obligatory on pages like this. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In the text it stated that " UN report stated the blockade was illegal, while another a UN inquiry found that the blockade was both legal and appropriate". Which is violation of WP:syn or WP:NOPOV. Assuming that it is an official report published by FAO(not some document in a long chain pre publication), it is not a yet another document, when the official position of the UN as of 2011 is that is legal. --Mor2 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. This is published on the UNISPAL website, and the source seems to be United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (indicated at the top), and technical support came from FAO.
Is your argument that the later source should abrogate the earlier source?VR talk 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The secretary general of the UN spoke at length recently and carefully avoided assigning blame. It would be tendentious to claim that the UN finds Israeli actions illegal, given that different agencies within the UN report conflicting conclusions. Tkuvho (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that the UN has given conflicting reports on the blockade's legality. It would be unfair to generalize that the UN considers the blockade as either legal or illegal.VR talk 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It's like saying that despite Barack Obama statement, USA policy it inconclusive, because minister of agriculture said something else two years ago. Or better yet, the decision of the Supreme Court is inconclusive because some local judge said something else two years ago.109.64.209.73 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Once you realize it's the mess of an organization called the UN, your scenario doesn't sound that strange. Capscap (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is your opinion, at the moment UN official position as released by the Secretary-General office is that Gaza blockade is legal, anything else is a violation of WP:NPOV --Mor2 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Article getting too long

This article is getting too long and should be divided, according to policy. I'm thinking its best to create a separate section for international reactions and have only a summary here.VR talk 07:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. If this doesn't end soon, I think the timeline should also get its own separate section. Capscap (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the timeline should get its own section. The timeline is the operation and so we need to cover it. However, I wouldn't mind trimming the timeline down by simply stating things briefly and avoiding redundancies.VR talk 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Brain fart. Capscap (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support It's at something like 192K right now. International reaction is definitely something that can be abbreviated. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support It's now about 206k. I agree about international reaction. Much of the other information can be moved to sub-articles, but it may be difficult to do it right while the event is still in progress. -ypnypn (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I've seen multiple long current event articles that used this strategy, such as Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support As per above comments. Inkbug (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Support This could also take care of this issue with the naming of the article. I just made a proposal of this sort in that section. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving?

At 385k and over 80 sections, I feel this page should be archived. If there are no objections, I'll archive old resolved discussions. Inkbug (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Where discussions have clearly ended. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now archived part of the page. If I did something wrong (my first time archiving) please tell me. Inkbug (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Separate sections, POV pushing

AnkhMorpork is trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to certain events by giving them their own section. For example, he created a whole new section for the bus bombing. He also [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Pillar_of_Defense&diff=prev&oldid=524200095 creates] a new section for the killing Mohammed Sadallah, even though this has little or nothing to do with the media. There are no allegations from reliable sources that any media organization misrepresented this attack. Both of these are clear attempts to highlight certain events above all others.

If I wanted, I can highlight some other notorious events: like the killing of the Dalu family, or the Israeli attack on news organizations, condemned internationally. But I think in the best interest of maintaining NPOV that no event be highlighted above.VR talk 16:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A separate section on the bus bombing is appropriate. It is a clear escalation of the events of the past week. The fact that many international bodies responded immediately by condemning this attack against civilians is an indication of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
VR, AnkhMorpork has contributed a great deal to this article. Can we please try to assume good faith in these discussions and not make everything be about somebody lobbying for a POV? --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Jprg1966, you see my user talk page for all the bad faith accusations AnkhMorpork has made against me. He even filed a false 3rr report against me.VR talk 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Similarly it can be argued that the killing of Omar Mishrawi, son of a BBC employee in Gaza was notably covered. The killing of the Dalu family elicited a response from both human rights organizations, several countries, and even an Israeli Knesset member. The Israeli attack on media buildings has also elicited an international response. Separate sections for all?VR talk 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Aha, so this is about a personal conflict the two of you are having. Take it off the talk page, if that's the case. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Sadallah was made into a celebrity by the Egyptian president rather than by User:AnkhMorpork. It seems to me User:Vice regent be giving User:AnkhMorpork too much credit. Tkuvho (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you find me a source that connects Sadallah to the Egyptian president?
In any case, the section is about media representation, not Egyptian politics. And Egyptian PM (is that who you meant?) did not make any allegations against Israel in regards to the attack. Nor was any media outlet, not even those biased against Israel, accused of making false allegations against Israel. In short, there is no media misrepresentation. Palestinian sources came forward and clearly said that a rocket was responsible for the death of Sadallah. VR talk 16:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is already in the page. The Egyptian president said that "the boy, the martyr...is something that we cannot keep silent about," before promising to defend the Palestinian people. This does not seem to be internal Egyptian politics any more than a terrorist attack against a city bus is internal Hamas politics. Tkuvho (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I would really appreciate if you would state things accurately. The Egyptian president did not make those remarks. If he did, please find me the source.
The Egyptian PM made those remarks. Can you tell me what about those remarks is untrue? And, since when do the Egyptian PM's remarks count as the "media"? The media refers to BBC News, Al Jazeera, Jersualem Post, etc. Reactions by officials belong in the "Reactions" section.VR talk 17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, these things should still be discussed. I don't think Sadallah deserves his own section. But an editor's motives shouldn't be discussed here. That should be left to WP:EW, WP:AE, and WP:ANI. And only if there is substantial evidence to raise a case. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that no motives should be discussed. Nothing personal should be said. But I don't think its unfair to criticize a particular person's edits. (Please feel free to criticize my edits - I'm far from perfect.) Any way, lets get back to the discussion.VR talk 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, topic at hand. I think it's too early to give the bombing its own section. If a wave of bombings begins, that might be more appropriate. We should definitely be careful since the page is already quite long. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that neither Sadallah nor the bombing deserve their own section. Nor do any of the events I mentioned. Let's see what others say.VR talk 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there is no justification for this. We do not have separate sections for any of the individual Israeli attacks that received huge RS coverage. Dlv999 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Individual Israeli attacks against Hamas infrastructures as well as their collateral damage are not comparable to deliberate attacks against civilians. Insisting on equating the two likely emanates from inappropriate anti-Israeli bias. Tkuvho (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get into this whole "moral equivalence" argument, this is not the place for it. Attacks can only be notable if there is significant RS coverage. A lot of attacks (including Israeli ones) have significant RS coverage, so we either give them all a separate section or none. The former option would make this article a mess.VR talk 17:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
VR, the bombing was explicitly singled out for international condemnation and has been cited as a possible impediment to a truce. Ban Ki Moon expressly condemned it is his speech and even countries such as Russia have criticised this attack. It differ in nature from the regular airstrikes and rocket-firing. As for your AN3 comments, you once again violated 1rr today in your edit-war regarding Sadallah in which no firm consensus has yet developed. You have continued to edit-war your preferred version and made sneaky changes when supposedly simply "moving content". Sources do comment on the media representation of Sadallah as I am sure you are aware, and the fact that I disagree with you should not be construed as bed-faith editing. If you insist I can improve on my AN3 report, but I would much rather focus on article content. It is a pity that you have sought once again to personalise our disagreements and perhaps you should review Bwilkin's comments to you about your disingenuous conduct involving me and AN3. Ankh.Morpork 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
(As requested by Jprg1966, I'm going to ignore AnkhMorpork's comments about me)
Firstly, that killing has not been "singled out" for condemnation, many killings have been internationally condemned. If we give one its own section, we have to, per NPOV, give the others too.
Secondly, condemnation of the killing is not misrepresentation. Of course the killing of a 4-year old will be condemned, its wrong no matter who does it. If Russia or Ban Ki Moon accuse Israel of killing Sadallah, only then it would be considered misrepresentation, but even then it wouldn't be "media" misrepresentation. Are there sources that indicated Russia and the UN made false statements?
Can you find me sources that allege that the media falsely presented Sadallah's death?VR talk 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Like the West Bank protests and the executions of the alleged collaborators have been devolved into separate sections though they form part of the events that occurred during this time frame, the bus bombing act was of particular notability, differing from the regular modality of the attacks, and earning specific international condemnation and press comment. Ankh.Morpork 17:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank is a separate region. Separation based on geography is not POV. Although, due to article length considerations, that may have to be merged into the Timeline too. But I agree that Hamas executions do not merit a separate section. The details should be in the Timeline and it should be mentioned in casualties.VR talk 17:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice that User:Vice regent proposes that we not get into this whole "moral equivalence" argument, but then appears to proceed in the assumption of such an equivalence between Israeli defensive actions against terrorist cesspools, on the one hand, and loathsome Hamas attacks against civilians, on the other. On the contrary, he could elaborate his views here so that other editors can form an independent opinion as to the impartiality of his edits. Tkuvho (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to explain my personal views on any of this. All I claim is that RS give similar coverage to Israeli attacks as they to Hamas ones. I would love to debate that latter point.VR talk 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
So should rockets from Gaza that landed on West Bank villages have a separate section? Ankh.Morpork 17:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. And currently they do not. The West Bank section deals with Palestinian protests and Israeli killing of Palestinian protesters. That is totally unrelated to the military operations of both Hamas and Israel.VR talk 20:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen, it is true that the bombing might have special significance because of the truce efforts. But we don't know that yet. We can mention that right now without creating a new section. If the bombing does create a new round of violence, we can lead with the bombing in that new section, perhaps. It is unlikely that the bombing on its own represents something so special that it deserves a section.

I'm going to also remind editors once again that personal conduct discussions do not belong on the talk page. Take it to a noticeboard. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


I don't think Sadallah should be a section. I tried shortening it in the past but it looks like someone added back some of what I deleted. It's not that important and I honestly dont think I've heard about it outside of wikipedia. I don't think it's something that anyone will look up 3 months from now.
I agree that there shouldn't be subsections within the timeline, but I'm fine with moving the bus bombing to spillover. it seems to be equivalent to the protests. And the Hamas executions seem fine in their own subsection. But I think the palestinian deaths from unintentional misfires can be merged into the general casualty section. Capscap (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As per the consensus above, I have merged the killing of Sadallah back into the Timeline, and deleted the section header called "bus bombing".VR talk 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bedouin

A Bedouin civilian was killed in rocket fire that struck the village of Rejwan in the Negev. Is this an Israeli or Palestinian casualty? Ankh.Morpork 19:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Most likely an Israeli.VR talk 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Because? Ankh.Morpork 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bedouin victim, Elian Salam Id Alanbary (29), was a citizen of Israel. See [6] --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Those living in Israel are presumed to be Israeli, unless stated otherwise, and those living in Gaza are presumed to be Palestinian unless stated otherwise.VR talk 03:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict in sources

133 dead/79 militants in lead. The New York Times now has:-

'The Hamas Health Ministry in Gaza said the Palestinian death toll after a week of fighting stood at 140 at noon. At least a third of those killed are believed to have been militants. On the Israeli side, five Israelis have been killed, including one soldier.'David D. Kirkpatrick, Ethan Bronner and Rick Gladstone, 'Cease-Fire Between Israel and Hamas Takes Effect,' New York Times 21 November 2012

There is a vast difference, and it is not clear that this estimation comes from the Hamas Health Ministry. As phrased, it suggests the contrary. In any case, whose figures are we citing for our text. The source for any newspaper reports must be checked to see if it is the IDF, the Israel Government, Hamas or any other involved authority, or, as in best practice, from more neutral sources that have a reputation for keeping track of names and identities, while steering clear of official bumf.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is stating:

Air strikes have hit rocket stores, launchpads and suspected Hamas command posts, government buildings and apartment blocks in an eight-day-old assault that has killed 139 Gazans, most of them civilians, including 34 children. Israel says 56 militants have been killed. Rockets fired from Gaza have killed four Israeli civilians and one soldier since the conflict began. 'Factbox: Gaza targets bombed by Israel' Reuters 21 November 2012

Sepsis II (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So the lead gives us the higehest figure for militants and the lowest for civilians.

According to Gaza health officials, 133 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict by 20 November, of which: 79 were militants, 53 civilians and 1 was a policeman.[

Reuters' figures for militants areour leads for civilians more or less. Total mess.


By the way 'the stated aim (from memory) was to halt indiscriminate rocket fire at civilian targets.' or something like that is in the lead. It is extremely silly to write that, whatever the source says.Any army aims to stop all rocket fire (our phrasing implies Israel would not protest discriminate firing by Hamas, at perhaps the IDF?) The 'aiming at civilians' is again an Israeli POV. Most rockets cannot be aimed with any precision, let alone at civilian vs army installations. This is repeated in the lead:'

According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events:[22] Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israeli civilians over a 24-hour period

The source the Jerusalem Post says no such thing, obviously. It says (from memory) '100 rockets were launched into South Israel'. In any case no one writing narrative English would says an army launched rockets at ..civilians'. You may target places where civilians are, of course. We should follow the source, and not hammer away at the adjective 'civilian'. (The Israeli presentations argues that they never aim for civilians, only Hamas does.)Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When Hamas fires a rocket at Sderot, where there are no military targets, they are firing at civilian targets. Their rockets are indiscriminate by definition since they are imprecise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You are supposed to know that we write according to sources, not according to our preferred deductions. The Jerusalem Post didn't say that. It may be true, but that is not the point, as opposed to the pointy language. Israel ostensibly aims at terrorists. The facts are that a large number of civilians are killed in 'collateral damage'. We do not say they aim at civilians.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone whitewashed "indiscriminate" so I added it back. As you said, by definition it is indiscriminate (or as Nishidani says above, "cannot be aimed with any precision"). Capscap (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
So Israel is fine with rocket attacks go long as they are discriminate? It is only the indiscriminate ones they want to stop? Sepsis II (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It's the indiscriminate attacks that prompted this operation. The rare instances where the Palestinians attack Israelis not indiscriminately do not result in such operations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
+1. And it's not our job to speculate. Capscap (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw [7] that edit before I read your message and knew it had to go, the edit was plain wrong as you point out. I have also fixed the article in regards to your second point about at "Israeli civilians" when it actually does say "southern Israel". Mister nice guy, even if what you said were true, what you say still goes against the sources.
I will let others fix the casuality claims as so many sources conflict still, though at the moment it seems we are standing at the most extreme side for high militant/low civilian ratios. Someone should try to find what the mean across all the sources and use that until the numbers are more confirmed. Sepsis II (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding false statements

Capscap has made [8] this edit. The source he adds does not back his edit at all, the source states that "[U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] said that more than 139 Palestinians had been killed, more than 70 of them civilians, and more than 900 were injured. In addition, some 10,000 Palestinians had lost their homes, he said, adding there was a critical need for humanitarian aid in the territory." Can someone fix this unscrupulous edit - with the CNN source or a more up to date one, I can not for I have made a revert already today. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to investigate. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how he arrived at those numbers. I'll restore the previous version. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused; how does the edit differ from the source? Capscap (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Check the number of civilians involved. That's not what you wrote. It looks like you were synthesizing between what was already in the infobox and what was in the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In response, Israel

In response, Israel < missing in response of what. (in first paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2 Palestinians killed after ceasefire announcement

The source doesn't actually say when the 2 Palestinians were killed, only that it happened after the ceasefire announcement. We can't put in our own opinions as to when this was.VR talk 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Original research on war crimes

The section on war crimes contains a fair bit of original research. Many of the sources being used neither accuse Israel or Hamas of war crimes, nor defend them. Yet, users have put in these sources anyway to make or defend against allegations of war crimes. This is WP:Original research.VR talk 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight innocent mistake

Skäpperöd, I think you made a mistake with this edit [9]. The source you added stated "the Israel Defense Forces publicly reported that it has conducted strikes at more than 1,450 targets in Gaza", but the actual wording in this wikipedia article is "The IDF launched more than XXXX air, tank, and warship strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip during the operation," Your source states the number of targets (1450) whereas this article is stating the number of attacks (1550-huffington post). I hope you see the difference and will correct it however you see fit. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to the Ceasefire

Maybe there should be a paragraph about the reaction to the Ceasefire. There is criticism about it in Israelץ For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/nov/22/gaza-ceasefire-holds-live

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/for-israels-netanyahu-cease-fire-has-benefits-and-risks/2012/11/22/88a3d5e2-34b2-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html "he domestic criticism started pouring in almost as soon as Israel’s cease-fire with Hamas was inked Wednesday night. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had waved a white flag and left the job unfinished, the opposition howled. A television snap poll found a large majority of the public did not support the Egypt-brokered truce." — Preceding unsigned comment added by K260260 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dalu family

How far in depth should we go into information on the Dalu family? Right now we have "Political leaders[who?] and human rights advocates[who?] have described the strike that killed the Dalu family as a "massacre" and a "war crime".[332] The event, which has become the "face of the Palestinian cause", was referred to as an accident by a spokeswoman for the IDF". Should we go into the number killed (11, 9 Dalu family members and 2 neighbors)[10] or the intended target (a man under whose command 200-300 rockets were fired at Israel[11])? Ryan Vesey 21:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to rework biased sources

The references for the article needs a complete overhaul. We need to completely minimize using any Israeli or Palestinian news sources, unless they're being used to reference official statements made. For example, reading over the sections for the past two days, I see Ynetnews is being used to reference and discuss the protests in West Bank and the Palestinians killed therein. This is rather inappropriate, because the inherent bias in Ynetnews in discussing this is obvious. There are many other instances of this sort of thing throughout the article and it really brings into question the reliability of most of the info in the article and whether it is truly being represented neutrally. SilverserenC 22:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

100% agreed. Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Under "Netherlands" it should read either "responsible for" or "guilty of," not "guilty for." I would have edited the page myself, but I understand this can be done only by authorized editors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.23 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Probably 80% of the sources are outdated and a complete review of them required

There is total chaos in the sources used to compile the article. I'ìve looked at several and found severe divergences, perhaps because people add new sources ignoring confict with old sources. In any case,

  • a close review of sources is needed
  • a substitution of dated sources with those that are now comprehensive and retrospective.

(1) In the source I just changed 55 militants arrested on the West Bank were calculated as Hamas militants in Gaza. The BBC text used did not mention 1 policeman etc. The BBC gives OCHA figures from a Palestinian source (155 dead, 102 civilians, of whom 30 children and 13 women). Now the Associated Press (Associated Press, begins cleaning itself up as truce with Israel enters first day,' 22 Novmber, 2012) is giving 161 Palestinians dead, calculating 71 civilians, and we do not know the source for this estimate. In other words, our sources are totally muddled, and we need great care here before jumping to conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have requested to update those figures yesterday in the infobox section, at the top Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Casualties_and_losses --Mor2 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(2)We have this now in the lead (WP:OR)

The Palestinian militant groups fired over 1,456[31] Iranian Fajr-5, Russian Grad rockets, Qassams and mortars into Rishon LeZion, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and other population centers;

A few days ago we had this:-

Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted at least 312 of 540 rockets fired into Israel, all but 35 of them falling in open areas.[7][8][9]

When a third of the Gaza missiles were fired into Israel, only 35 of them, about 6-7%,fell in or near urban areas. The overwhelming majority fell into open areas. Now, with 3 times that number registered as being fired, every kind of rocket has been fired directly into cities.
No one, except the POV merchants twisting the lead like this, appears to know what is being done by such manipulations. Eventually a source will provide us with a breakdown of all types of rocket used, area of impact etc. But such WP:OR with a POV bent on suggesting Hamas rockets have the precision of IDF rockets has no place in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
(3) As to skewed reportage abroad, the media section should take not of Gideon Levy Gaza I did not go, at Haaretz 22 Nov 2012, who writes of his own impressions of reportage within Israel:-

That's how it is that Israel knows almost nothing about what is happening in Gaza. . . . There is almost no tangible expression in the Israeli media of the destruction and death that Israel has sown and the great fear gripping one and a half million residents for a week, without a reinforced safety room, without Code Red alerts and without a shelter. They suffice with short, dry reports at the edges of the news. . . Of course, the suffering in the south should be widely reported - I do it also - but we must not close our eyes to what is happening on the other side, even if it's not nice to see a house blown up with all its residents. Whoever wants to know these days what is happening in Gaza is invited to watch the international networks and read the newspapers of the world: Only there will they bring you the full story. Israel, and some of its journalists, will tell you that it's hostile, slanderous and distorted journalism. They only want you to see Ashkelon and Rishon Letzion. One needs to know what is happening in Gaza in order to know what is happening in Israel. Journalism that fails to do so, and doesn't even protest, is conscripted hasbara. It's nice when a military correspondent in a yellow helmet climbs onto a firefighters' crane to show us the destruction of an apartment block; we can even somehow live with a military propagandist-commentator who only grunts for war. But reading out text messages from the authorities is not journalism. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(4)This has 'dropped' out of the lead, though it provides the necessary balancing POV. Without it we have the Israeli line, and nothing else.

Palestinian militants blame Israel for the upsurge in violence, pointing to IDF actions resulting in the deaths of Gaza civilians in the days leading up to the operation.[10][11] They also cite the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, as the reason for rocket attacks.[12]

In restoring it, due attention should be given to the details provided by Jonathan Cook, 'The Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza,' Al-Jazeerah, November 19, 2012, who argues a Palestinian view that the 'inciting cause of the latest confrontation' goes back decades involved the 'progressiv choking of life out of Gaza, destroying its economy, periodically wrecking its infrastructure, denying its inhabitants freedom of movement and leaving its population immiserated.'(b) that Israel 'engineered the confrontion' by shooting a 13 year old playing football on November 8, after a two week lull in tensions (c)a truc was agreeed to on Novmber 2, which held for two days until Ahmd Jabari was assassinated (d) electoral calculations also played a role.(d)Hamas has been systematically challenging the IDF policy of containment by attempting to prevent the IDF from entering at will insid the perimeter, as they had in 3 incidents on November 4, November 8, and November 10th.Too large for the lead, but whoever removed the Palestinian POV has unbalanced the article, and violated NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The same editor who removed the statement pointing to Israel's attacks on Palestinians leading up to the assault and the Israeli occupation of Palestine is also the same editor who decided to change that Israel bombed targets "including rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, fields, numerous government buildings, and dozens of houses and apartment blocks." to Israel bombed targets "including rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, and buildings of the Hamas regime.". It is clear the editor is here to make this article into a piece of Israeli propaganda. Sepsis II (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless there was some other violation his edits seems appropriate. This part "and dozens of houses and apartment blocks" is misleading, since it implies that they targeted civilian population, like the Hamas. When the IDF don't hide the fact it target those as well, but only if they had a valid military value(weapon stockpile for example). So I'd rather take his "propaganda" than yours. --Mor2 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No consideration whatsoever should be given to Cook's opinion piece on what is not Al-Jazeera the well known Qatar based news organization, but which for some unfathomable reason Nishidani decided nevertheless to wikilink to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The 'unfathomable reason' is in the time stamp and bronchitis. It was late, I was ill and in a rush. No excuse for error of course. But, your argument fails for several reasons. There is not reason why that article, at (1)CNI Council for the National Interest or (2) Counterpunch or (3) here at OpEdNews would fail to pass as worthy of mention, given the suspension of the usual criteria for RS we require of articles by editors of this page, which uses blogs indiscriminately, and numerous dubious sources regarding none of which you appear to have registered the same scrupulous control as you endeavour to do with my suggestions.
To cite just a very small sample of highly questionable sources which normally would never get into a wiki article:-
  • title=After UNRWA protest, Israel hides video falsely alleging firing from Gaza schools
The only source here that would probably have a fair chance of passing muster is Mearsheimer's comment in a blog section of the LRB, because of his expertise, area knowledge and publishing record. So by all means procede with your life mission to monitor my work, but, if you want to get any credibility, apply the same criteria to everything you see on a page, and try not to obsess unilaterally about one editor's rather rare lapse. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Are any of those trying to pass a hate site as a respectable news source? And please, you're the last person to lecture me about credibility. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On point 2. As far as I understand, in ordered to provide ample time for the population to get into shelter, the air raid sirens are triggered the moment a lunch is detected at a population center.[12] So the damage is already done, regardless if eventual the rocket fall short of the target, intercepted or find a home and those metropolitan areas are mentioned to put those numbers into context, for people like me who are not rocket scientist or permanent residents of gaza/Israel.
On point 3, its hardly the first skewed coverage, I heard worse accusations about "fox news vs cnn" and I seen far far worse during this conflict(in 4 languages). Regardless the 'Media_misrepresentation' section is not about that, so there is no need to pad it with undue information.

Misrepresentation of sources

I have noticed that whenever sources state that the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have done some thing this article says it was Hamas. I went through some of the sources and corrected this per the source but now notice that the corrections have been reverted. One ridiculous edit comment said "doesn't matter which wing" to justify the reversion, if the editor thought it didn't matter why did he revert? These are two separate organisations treated by the sources as such. If the source says a specific organisation was responsible then the article should say this. Is there any reason why reverting these misrepresentations should not be treated as vandalism? Wayne (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think many of the edits going on to distort sources, delete important, sourced information, and general bias pushing are vandalism, but there are some corrupt administrators out there who would like to see us blocked. But don't worry, I will restore your edit shortly. Sepsis II (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you link to the diff of the person reverting you? Because, yes, I would consider that vandalism, if not purposeful POV slanting of the article, the latter of which I consider to be a much more dire issue. The person who reverted should be directly warned that if they attempt to do something like that again, they will be taken to ANI for it. SilverserenC 02:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
[13] This is the edit, just looking at it I would say it actually isn't that big of a deal, but when one looks into it, and knows that Hamas condemned the actions taken by Izzedine al-Qassam, then the importance of separating the political and military wings becomes substantial. Though, I guess it's not vandalism, just a poor/unnecessary edit in my opinion.Sepsis II (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this currently fixed in the article? SilverserenC 03:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The source in that diff specifically says "Hamas executes six suspected informants" so what's the point and why are threats necessary?
The idea that "these are two separate organisations treated by the sources as such" is patently false. IDQ are part of Hamas. Not a seperate organization. Sources don't treat them as separate organizations usually. Also "Hamas condemned the actions taken by Izzedine al-Qassam" is false. Perhaps the political wing of Hamas condemned actions taken by the military wing of Hamas (although I'd like to see that). They're still part of the same organization. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Our article currently states "On November 21, Hamas deputy leader Moussa Abu Marzouk condemned the killings as "unlawful", adding that any punishments or executions must follow the legal process. He further added that those behind the killings must be punished.[13]"
While the source's author does exchange Hamas and Izzedine al-Qassam freely, the article does state that "The Hamas military wing, Izzedine al-Qassam, claimed responsibility". Sepsis II (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh they condemned the killing of Palestinians. I thought you meant they condemned killing of Israelis, or targeting civilians, or something unlikely like that. Anyway, as is obvious, we're talking about a disagreement within the same organization. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no disagreement nor is anything obvious, obvious in fact falls under WP:OR. The two organisation have no agreement to disagree on and act independently. For example, according to Gershon Baskin Hamas only began firing rockets due to public pressure and targets open spaces to avoid casualties which may lead to escalation of the conflict. The Brigades are rather indiscriminate in their targets. Wayne (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant that in the specific example above, they disagreed on how to deal with suspected collaborators.
We should stick to what the sources say in each specific case. If they say Hamas we say Hamas. If they say IQ, we say IQ. Simple really.
BTW, I find Baskin's claim about firing into open spaces quite odd considering these are very imprecise weapons which often fall into Gaza, but that's neither here nor there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant when I said "treat as vandalism". I meant for the purposes of being exempt from the articles 1RR. I actually made three corrections, here, here and here. Two of these still have not been restored. Wayne (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems I will soon fix

1) Someone added "Palestinians fired 12 rockets into Israel in the 24 hours after the ceasefire." to the lead, sourced to a single sentence by the Israeli Ynet. Reading though other sources I can find no other sources reporting this, only sources saying the cease-fire is holding and some talking reporting how both sides made last strikes just before the ceasefire started. Thus, I will remove it for being probably untrue, and of course we should caution on the side of quality of information rather than quantity of information.

  • For #1, the point is that Ynetnews and JPost are biased for obvious reasons in regards to anything related to the Palestinians. So we should be attempting to use a neutral source for the info. And since there don't seem to be any outside sources reporting this, it begs the question whether Ynetnews, a biased source for the info, is telling the truth. SilverserenC 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ynet and JPost are reliable sources. That you think they are biased has no bearing on whether they can be used, as I'm sure you know. That's regardless of that fact that it would only not "seem to be any outside sources reporting this" if you didn't look. [14] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Then why aren't we using one of those other sources? SilverserenC 04:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Because two sources is enough I guess? No idea. As you can see, it's easy to make a list of dozens such sources. Feel free to add those you like to the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Just note that some people in Israel think that JPost has a pro-Palestinian bias. 79.180.9.75 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Before I will address this, do you have sources for your claim that "when they were aiming at, and hiting, many different targets including military targets in Israel" --Mor2 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

3) According to Reuters, [17] Israel bombed many targets including numerous government buildings, dozens of houses and apartments, police stations, military training camps, fields, media offices, militants, and a bank and a bridge. Yet, this article states in the lead that Israel had bombed "rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, and buildings of the Hamas government.". That only military related items are mentioned is extremely biased as it gives the incorrect impression that Israel did not bomb the many civilian buildings that it did.

  • This text is out dated, it seems that somone has partisaned your suggetion and its now says:

    "The IDF launched more than 1,550[33] air, tank, and naval strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip during the operation,[34] including rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, and numerous government buildings, fields, and dozens of houses and apartment blocks."

    which is at the very least violates WP:SYN, merging several sources to make it look like IDF launched strikes against civilian targets.
Additionally Israel never stated that it lunched more than 1,550 strikes, it says that it targeted more than 1,500 targets. (also source [33] states roughly 1,550 airstrikes, while their official source [18] states more than 1500, though It possible other were made after they made infogram)--Mor2 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

5) In the lead we have "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events:[28] Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at southern Israel over a 24-hour period,[29][30] an attack on an Israeli military patrol jeep within Israeli borders by Gaza militants,[31] and a tunnel explosion caused by IEDs near Israeli soldiers on the Israeli side of the fence.[32]" By giving such prominence to one side while giving not a single word to neutral or Palestinian commentators on why the hostilities began we are being extremely biased. For example from a JPost article, "Most Palestinians, she notes, don’t see the conflict as having been touched off by the assassination of Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari on November 14, but by the shooting by IDF forces on November 8 of Hamid Younis Abu Daqqa, a 13-yearold boy."[19], or a neutral commentator may state something along the lines of 'that the hostilities began after a series of "retaliatory" attacks by both sides as part of a conflict that began many decades ago.'

  • For point 5 I simply re-added "Palestinian militants blame Israel for the upsurge in violence, pointing to alleged IDF attacks on Gazan civilians in the days leading up to the operation.[10][11] They also cite the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, as the reason for rocket attacks.[14] " which previously was in the lead.
I also changed "offensive" to "operation" for describing Hamas' side of the hostilities for equality with Israel's "operation"
I also did not make an edit for point #2, will wait for more discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ask that you either find sources for the "pointing to IDF attacks on Gazan civilians in the days leading up to the operation" you added, or remove it. The sources are news stories about events, not the Palestinians pointing to anything regarding the subject of this article. This is obvious SYNTH. Would you like to remove it or should I? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, how about the Jpost article and quote I linked to above? I think that shows that Palestinians are pointing to the death of the Gazan boy by the IDF as what started the operations.
Though I see the article has been edited, I don't have time now to see who did what, but I do like how the reasoning given for the Israeli operation was shortened (just for brevity's sake) to "The Israeli government said the operation began in response to Gaza militants rocket fire, and attacks against Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Gaza border." But, I there is nothing on why others believe the operation began. I think something like "The Israeli government said the operation began in response to Gaza militants rocket fire, and attacks against Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Gaza border. While Palestinians point to earlier attacks by the IDF on Gazans as the reason for their operation". Sepsis II (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I made this edit. I decided to just tag the bit I mentioned above since it's probably true but does need relevant sourcing. Someone reverted it. I'm too lazy to find out who and too busy to fight over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

6) Lastly, there is this, "Israel said that it had achieved its aim of crippling Hamas's rocket-launching abiliity,[71] while Hamas declared victory and thanked Iran and Egypt for helping make Israel "scream with pain".[72]" in the lead. This seems to be baised to show Israel in a good light, Palestine in a bad light. A more neutral statement would be "Israel said that it had achieved its aim of crippling Hamas's rocket-launching abiliity,[71] while Hamas declared victory declaring that "The option of invading Gaza after this victory is gone and will never return." [20]. Sepsis II (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The Palestinian version you suggested sounds like a PR statement. I would like to see any reliable source that will claim the same i.e. that any of Hamas actions, deterred Israel from entering gaza. In fact I'd bet that the poor weather was a bigger concern to Israeli Military. --Mor2 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree with your first point. That you think something is "untrue" is not a reason to remove it if it's from a reliable source. If you could find a source that says no rockets were fired after the truce started at 9PM, you'd have something.
What's your source for your second point? IIRC they were quite proud that they were shooting at cities and towns.
Your 3rd point is fair. I agree with removing the text in your 4th point, although the soapboxing is unnecessary. You can add the text in your 5th point. 6th point - how about including both? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a separate question about the rockets after ceasefire. The ceasefire is between Israel and Hamas, correct? Does it involve any of the other groups in the region? If not, then that doesn't stop them from continuing to fire rockets. I only note this because the sources seem to just be saying Palestinian militants, which means they have no idea which group shot the rockets. SilverserenC 04:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the points you raised and consider them as POV pushing. --Mor2 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well to bring an article from bias to neutral there has to have been an editor or two who originally made the article bias to begin with, and I believe that was you. Please try to show how my edits are "POV pushing", rather than just making the outlandish claim. If you can not give a reason why adding the perspective of non-Israelis is bias, or my other edits are bias, than I don't see any value in your comment. Sepsis II (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not concerned with your believes or misrepresentations, but with your proposed changes and I don't want to see a string of edit "per discussion", without a proper discussion. Also your So I left you quick note, to stop the list of usual suspects to agree with your perspective, naturally I will address each issue as I already did with first. --Mor2 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all of Sepsis II's edits/suggestions. This article is in dire need of some pro-Israeli POV cleaning. Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Operation Events

To be addded: Death of 13 year old 13-year-old Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa after being shot while playing football. Possible sources include:
New Israeli Escalation against the Gaza Strip, 7 Palestinians, Including 3 Children, Killed and 52 Others, Including 6 Women and 12 Children, Wounded,
Family mourns Gaza boy shot by Israeli forces while playing football,
and Gaza: Palestinian boy 'killed by Israeli gunfire'.
The death was on 8 November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.98.201 (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why must everyone push their POV?

I dont understand why every time one of these conflicts occurs, everyone has to slant it their way. The fact that we are editing Wikipedia, I think, makes us all adults here, whether we are 13 or 90. We are, in a way, a step above the general population. Many of us are veteran, established editors. Others are newer. Some just came on to whack the article with their nonsense. For once, can we be reasonable and not try to make human talking points in every little paragraph. "Mentally disabled shot by soldiers" "pregnant woman killed by IDF or Hamas rocket" (both occurred I think) etc. Who cares. I have a bias in this conflict too, but I am usually able to set that aside for editing. The debate over what to call Hamas operatives? Fighters, militants, soldiers, terrorists? Holy crap. I hear garbage arguments from both sides. They are terrorists. They are soldiers, albeit unorganized. This is ridiculous. Its a freaking word.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I an inclined to think its better to write such articles an year after operation has ended.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Metallurgist, I definitely agree with you that it is ridiculous that people are forcing their POV. However the word terrorist applied to either side is forcing a POV since it's usually a negative connotation. For the IDF and Hamas, we should use the term soldier as it is a neutral term. Derpian (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No we should use the term militant, to seek to try and pretend that the hamas side is a conventional military force is biased and totally unacceptable. Many sources describe them as militants and that is appropriate for this article. It would be POV to call them soldiers. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
lol! good point metal' well made. shame someone can't drop their POV for long enough to see your point, but such is life. Teknotiss (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

HAMAS is the democratically elected governing body of a nation. They have their own military. Who has uniforms, a hierarchy, emblems and flags. Seeing as Israel keeps calling on-duty military deaths of their citizens "civilian deaths from terrorist attacks", you're going to have to make up your mind as to either have Israel labelled terrorists or call the Hamas military exactly what they are...soldiers. I strongly suggest everyone attempt to edit out the use of militant with "soldier" and report anyone who removes that edit. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I definitely agree, I have done this now but I bet this won't last long. Derpian (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I got most of it. Low on time hoping someone else can help. Derpian (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted. There's another discussion on this talk page already (in fact, the debate was terrorist vs. militant). Google has over 100x more results for "hamas militant" vs. "hamas soldier." Google news has 0 results for "hamas soldier" and 28,000 for "hamas militant." Capscap (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Google is NOT Wikipedia. Derpian (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ceasefire

I'm writing a section on the ceasefire efforts under way and both parties' demands. I'm surprised nothing like that exists already.VR talk 04:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

someone please add information about the recent ceasefire that took effect (2pm eastern time) and the fact that there are still rockets being launched from Gaza. [15] [16] (isba) 21 November 2012 8:33PM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.127.19 (talk)
another source if needed for continued rocketfire from Gaza http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4310174,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.127.19 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In this diff an editor deletes almost all the information about WHY Netanyahu agreed to a ceasefire.
According to Debka.com President Barack Obama personally swore to start sending US troops to the Sinai border with Israel the next week in order to to accelerate construction of a security fence along the Suez Canal and northern Sinai and to help manage the system. It will be a counter-measure against the smuggling of Iranian weapons to Hamas. Troops also may break up smuggling rings throughout the Sinai.[17]
With all the trivia in the article, removing this is quite absurd. Unless we hear some rational policy related argument for this revert, I'll be putting the info back in. CarolMooreDC 01:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Carol, as you will notice I only re-wrote the sentence in a more succinct way:
According to Debka.com Netanyahu agreed to a ceasefire after US President Barack Obama pledged to start deploying US troops in Egyptian Sinai by the end on November 2012
The previous text was a bit inaccurate (ie "next week") and added some irrelevant text ("Troops also may break up smuggling rings throughout the Sinai") I'm noticing I forgot the end of the sentence which I'll be adding right now ("...in order to to accelerate construction of a security fence along the Suez Canal and northern Sinai") Regards Gaba p (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it does need more clarification of "arms smuggling rings", the point being that there is a promise of US troops policing quite a bit of the Sinai which is a major development with major implications as the article shows. But I guess we can wait til the mainstream press gets its official press release from Obama, assuming there ever is one, and figures out what it all means.Of course, Morsi might get overthrown when Egyptians find out what he agreed to, so still a developing storey. CarolMooreDC 05:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Carol, just letting you know that another editor (not me) removed the sentences referenced to Debka here [21] Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I see Egypt is now denying US troops separate from an international force here. But of course that could mean 80% US troops. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the truth is and stick it in. Though I think all three parties do NOT want the world to know what is going on, thus problem with getting mainstream sources. CarolMooreDC 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

War crimes

Maybe it should be mentioned in the section on war crime allegations that Hamas rocket attacks in general are considered war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahaha, oh wow. Just wow. I notice you forgot to mention that Israel's use of white phosphorous and it's deliberate targeting with large payload warheads of RESIDENTIAL areas that has killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more in the last few days are DEFINED and IRREFUTABLE WAR CRIMES. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Do 68.6.227.26 argue for more precise rockets ? If so what rocket accuracy to payload weight, will he/she [or source] consider not a war crime ? `


I agree. According to the international law an attack against a non-military targets is a war crime. Which makes virtually every rocket shot by Hamas during this conflict a war crime. As for Israel, you need to show that the attack during which civilians were killed, were not justified by military necessity. I am sure that eventually someone will ("necessity" makes this law wide open to POVs) but until that time those are allegations. --Mor2 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

20 November 2012 Local journalists say they saw Hamas execute six people on Tuesday afternoon for being Israeli informers, the BBC's Paul Danahar reports from Gaza. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20413625 THIS HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE AND SHOULD BE Bwdwiki6 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to shout, especially your 1st contribution to the project. Welcome and good luck here. Enough folks are working on this article that it will be digested and included if relevant and considered a reliable source. --Malerooster (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

Hi, Israel casualties are different in some part of article, please correct and match them to each other. Sincerely. --H.b.sh (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Cease fire may not last long

This is the front page news right now, someone else was killed and 9 wounded. The article also discusses the cease fire pretty extensively, in regards to what Hamas believes is the terms and what Israel says isn't the terms. Also, Palestinian death toll is 167 now, according to Gaza officials. I guess 168, since the article says the new guy isn't included in the count. SilverserenC 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead citesd a Gazan source for 160, =105 civilian and 55 'militants'. If you read the source it says:'Palestinian Deaths Rise to 160, Including 105 Civilians, and 1,000 Others, Including 971 Civilians, Wounded.'
In other words the source doesn't mention 'militants' or 55. This is a deduction made by the editor. WP:OR in one sense. A reasonable deduction in another.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There are many deduction made by us, for example Israel stated it had "8 in critical condition, 9 in moderate condition and 222 lightly injured (figures of wounded include 20 soldiers)" so it became 8+9+222-20 this is not WP:OR this basic math.--Mor2 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not 'basic math' for a very simple reason. Deducting civilians from the overall number and labelling the residue as 'militants' bundles up promiscuously anyone belonging to Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other organization identified as a generic Gazan adversary. In the last 2008 war there was substantial controversy over the Israeli massacre of dozens of police cadets as 'Hamas militants' in the opening bombardment at 11 am. In international law, they were not. They were men inducted into a police force, and to say that they were employed by Hamas and therefore are militants, is an Israelocentric POV. 255 police officers were killed in that war, many carrying out their duties in the civil sphere, simply because the IDF and Israel did not make a distinction crucial to international law. We are obliged to hew to neutrality, and not (a) make inferences and (b) label them under s dubious negative omnium gatherum rubric. So whoever did that was, as is the case with nearly every third edit, fudging. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are arguing about the use of the term 'militants' there are several topic on that already. If its about inferences, then just above that I also used military instead of terrorist. Otherwise I don't see your point, if you have problem with the 'Palestinian Center for Human Rights' figures/definitions, we can sort it out with several more source as it was before, plus add the absent Israeli figures to avoid POV issues.--Mor2 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the operation is over. --Mor2 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw this earlier. Regardless, until the cease-fire is officially broken, it'd be violating CRYSTAL to say anything about it "may not hold" or "may be broken" or "isn't strong" etc. Just a policy note, not really wanting to go into it any further than that. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Should sources say it, WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't be violated. See "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" Ryan Vesey 23:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
However, unless sources specifically say that that source/agency believes the cease-fire won't hold, then anything that takes further deaths/attacks etc. and puts it into a "ceasefire won't hold" will be SYNTH on our part. I'm just making sure that we get this in here in the right ways :) gwickwire | Leave a message 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless if it hold or not, all of this is part of the operation aftermath.--Mor2 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning for something like that to be added. The section title is just my opinion. It's more that the news article has a lot of information about the ceasefire that can be included. SilverserenC 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ban Ki-moon to meet Netanyahu and Abbas after Egypt talks" at Yahoo! News November 19, 2012
  2. ^ "UN chief to visit Israel and West Bank as Gaza ceasefire efforts intensify" at The Guardian November 19,2012
  3. ^ "Arab Doctors: We will recruit all of our resources to aid Gazans" at Youm7 November 17,2012
  4. ^ "الجزيرة مباشر مصر برفقة الوفد الشعبي المتضامن في غزة" November 19,2012
  5. ^ "Arab League delegation in Gaza for solidarity, ceasefire" at Al-Ahram November 20, 2012
  6. ^ "As bombs drop around them, a Gaza resident and an Israeli resident speak with Isha Sesay about living among the violence."
  7. ^ LIVE BLOG, Haaretz 18 November 2012
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference toi5a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Gili Cohen and Avi Issacharoff,'Rocket fire on south resumes; IDF: Gaza death toll reaches 95,' at Haaretz 19 November, 2012.
  10. ^ a b "Gaza: Palestinians killed and Israeli soldiers injured". BBC. 11 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  11. ^ a b "Israel warns Hamas of 'heavy price' for Gaza rockets". 11/11/2012. Retrieved 21/11/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  12. ^ Source "Q&A: Israel-Gaza violence". BBC News. 2012-11-20. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  13. ^ "'Completely unacceptable': Hamas leader says killers of 'Israeli spies' must be punished". National Post. 2012-11-21.
  14. ^ Source "Q&A: Israel-Gaza violence". BBC News. 2012-11-20. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  15. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57553140/israel-and-hamas-agree-to-gaza-cease-fire/
  16. ^ http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=292959
  17. ^ Obama’s pledge of US troops to Sinai next week won Israel’s nod for ceasefire, Debka.com, November 23, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Gaza_War/Archive_2&oldid=1232104845"