Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Peripheral stuff

There needs to be some appreciation for WP:UNDUE. The passage about refugees fleeing is one hop from the Gaza conflict, so it is in the reactions in Gaza section. What happenned to some of the refugees (drowned) is another hop, but drowning is what makes them notable, as the Ha'aretz article notes. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in, unless lots of people die, nobody cares about them, and they are not notable.

The circumstances of the drowning (some competing smugglers rammed them) is another hop. The machinations of Fatah and Hamas, trading insults, and the corruption and/or smugglers smuggling people and taking money etc. is another hop and not relevant to this page. It can be added in the Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels page.

There has to be some control over stuff sprawling here. Already the article is huge. I will try to attack the various sections at some point. Right now, the article just seems to be a dumping ground for some tidbit people find from some place. That probably applies to some of my edits as well. Kingsindian (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV either we mention circumstances of the drowning of we don't mention it at all.--Shrike (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how WP:NPOV applies. What are the two points of view, one of which is being suppressed? Kingsindian (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The smugglers are possibly connected to Hamas by use of Hamas's tunnels. According to some sources that I did not quote yet these possibly-hamas-connected-smugglers drowned their own ship on purpose after the refugees refused to move to a smaller vessel they deemed unsafe, with 300 refugees trapped inside and drowning. Other sources say that refugees were escaping "Hamas Devil" or "Gaza hell". I deem these fact notable. Perhaps the paragraph indeed doesn't belong in this article, since they do not say specifically that all of this happened in reaction to OPE. What would be the right place to put it then ? "Ways in which Hamas is bad" article that you suggested (in jest?) begins to sound like a good idea. WarKosign (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that the stuff about the $2,500 bribes etc. be put in the smuggling tunnels page. I am not sure where to put the "drowned their own ship" or "conflict between smugglers" stuff. Not sure an article exists dealing with that kind of stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole paragraph belongs in the smuggling tunnels article - smuggling people (and then drowning them) is just another use of the tunnels. WarKosign (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Wars create refugees, this is normal. In Gaza, they can't flee without using tunnels. The tunnels are mentioned only in passing. The drowning is only mentioned briefly, one sentence, because that makes the story notable, as I said above. The issues are always complex, not every refugee has the same motivation. I can add a couple of statements to that effect if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a single package - refugees escaping by ship + use of hamas tunnels + bribes/payment + smugglers fighting between them and/or killing refugees. All of these should be mentioned together at the same place. I think the tunnels article is the right place to describe the whole story - unless there is something connecting it specifically to OPE.WarKosign (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely, the tower issue was a mainstream story line and not a silly no-one-cares type of report (remember Avi and his night-vision story? ... ffs!). Unfortunately, I really don't know how the cheese-players here pick and choose but it is not by mainstream (who in the mainstream cared about someone drowning?) Haaretz is one source. No more, no less. I'm sure they have articles with other "notable" examples... maybe even AyatollahTV and Hamas PR department noticed a few of those *yay!* (Has any major network made it into a major story? I doubt it) On point. I'm glad you noticed a problem might exist. I'm hoping selection of material will not be based on supervillain methodology (read: personal preference) but on mainstream notability. -- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) m MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject about the drownings doesn't belong on this page. It was not part of the conflict. It should be added to the Gaza smuggling page. Just because something is remotely related to this page doesn't mean it needs to be added. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You reverted my addition to your paragraph per BRD. How does BRD apply here ? Your addition of the section was the Bold change which I did not accept fully and tried to fix. Had I Reverted your change, it would be clear, but it looks now that if there is no agreement here the default would be to your first Bold edit, and it seems just wrong. It is similar to what happened with 8200 letter. One solution I see is never to try correcting previous edits but to always revert them, but it's counter-productive. WarKosign (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my first edit, we can discuss it. And if there is consensus to not add it, then it will be removed. There is no default here that it would stay. That is of course the problem with an active article being changed all the time, and under 1RR restrictions. I have at least 10 edits that I want to revert. Things will stabilize eventually. Kingsindian (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a problem and added more stuff to fix it. Now you reverted it, I have the same problem again. This is what we're discussing above - my comment here is on the technicality of "BRD" : BRD is ok, but BBRDRD might be frowned upon, despite being more productive. WarKosign (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have self-reverted while this discussion goes on. Can we agree on the fact that people fleeing Gaza is important to be added in the reactions section? What else needs to be added, can be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My take on that either we include all the details or we only include a short line that people fleeing from Gaza.--Shrike (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a short and neutral mention that links to more detailed information elsewhere? WarKosign (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So where to put the main paragraph ? Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels#Transport of people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

[1] Here it says that some of the refugees on a ship that (was) drowned left Gaza 2 weeks before OPE. Unless there is a source that provides specific connection, it shouldn't be even mentioned here. WarKosign (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Since story is relatively new, not much details on the motives of the refugees. I will hold back on the entire thing it becomes clear. Some people say it was because of war, some say it was long term. See this.Kingsindian (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What does the fox say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the refugee stuff based on a Der Spiegel report, which adds some more information. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The connection to OPE is better but still not perfectly obvious. Der Spiegel says "He began his journey to Europe in August, right at the end of the war" - not necessarily because of it. Haaretz says "Gazans have been fleeing the Strip since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge" - not necessarily because of it, and not necessarily by ships. It is not unreasonable to conclude that some or even most of the people who were on the ship that sunk fleeted Gaza because of OPE and therefore the event indeed is a reaction to OPE - but drawing this conclusion is OR. WarKosign (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

From the Der Spiegel article: "Both men had fled Gaza after their homes had been destroyed in bombing attacks." Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a source saying "because" and not "after". It is still open to interpretation and the connection to OPE by one or two person's story is very weak. Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter ? WarKosign (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Motives of refugees are always complex. You are not likely to get more precise information than this. I gave the two survivors above, and the one person whose quote is included (who died). I think it is fine as a summary, but people are welcome to comment. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Note

The current lead implies Israeli aggression against Hamas by stating that Israel killed several Hamas members in Khan Yunis on July 6, and Hamas retaliated with rockets. I have been trying to seek consensus for including the Israeli claim that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30 at DRN. However, it may also be worth noting that Israel maintains the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels: "Hamas has vowed revenge for what it saw as Israel's deadliest attacks in which six Palestinian militants died, though Israel denied any involvement...The Israeli military said its aircraft had targeted "terror sites and concealed rocket launchers" in the enclave, but had not hit the southern Gaza area of Rafah, on the Egyptian border, where the Hamas gunmen died. Military spokesman Lerner said the militants had died when explosives went off in a tunnel that Israel had bombed several days ago, fearing gunmen planned to use it to try and penetrate into Israel." It turns out the same account was given by The New York Times: "When Hamas militants entered the damaged tunnel a day or so later, they apparently set off explosives there...Hamas blamed Israel, escalating the hostilities that grew into the current confrontation." Hamas' claim that seven of its members were killed by an Israeli airstrike is not an assertion Wikipedia should parrot uncritically.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Hamas will brazenly say just about anything as long as they think it is a good story -- e.g. "in 45 days you've only killed women and children"s, or "the Israelis concentrate on killing children"..."mix their blood in the holy Matzos"(Osama) which is a big problem when editors are politically motivated enough to insist on inserting these "statements" without proper clarification that they are inherently antisemitic. On point: I was in favor of removing the 'non-Hamas' ridiculousness in the lead, but there was a single source which I could not verify (Nathan something book -- which on the face of it, seems legit) and I had not found counter sources. Now these are a good addition. Cheers. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To TheTimesAreAChanging: Firstly, the NYT is simply relaying the Israeli claim, as it makes clear. Secondly, we do not go by what each side claims, we look at the weight of WP:RS. Every Israeli or Hamas claim is not necessary to include in this article. Thirdly, if I understand the claim, it says that Israel planted explosives in a tunnel inside Gaza, and Hamas members got killed while entering it. That is of course different than an airstrike, but is there any difference in agency? If X plants a bomb somewhere, is X any less responsible for the killing than bombing it from the air? Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On that day the IDF reported it was responible for the deaths, even if the language is confused.

The IDF prevented an imminent terror attack by targeting a Hamas tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel.The IDF targeted a Hamas tunnel early Monday morning, preventing an imminent terror threat to Israeli citizens. Hamas terrorists built the tunnel, which extends from Gaza into Israel, in order to execute complex attacks against civilians and IDF soldiers. At the time of the strike, terrorists inside the tunnel were working with explosives, causing a massive blast that killed seven Hamas operatives. . . Lt. Col. Peter Lerner. “We are committed to fulfil our duty with preemptive precision and extensive intelligence in order to safeguard Israelis under threat. Gaza terrorists will not be free to scheme, plot and conspire. They will face the repercussions of their loathsome intentions.”

However this was then spun afterwards is another matter. It was widely reported at the time that the explosion was due to an IAF strike.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Initial reports are often corrected later on when more information is available. As compromise, it is reasonable to use "initially reported X" and "following reports said Y". MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Initial reports are often raw, i.e., they aren't 'spun'. There's a huge history of backpeddling to cover arses, or develop a political slant. The fact is that the IAF made an airstrike at the tunnel within Gaza where 7 Hamas members were blown up. That is not contested, since one strikes under instruction, and the reason and target behind the strike were provided immediately. Strategists don't rethink the reasons that led to a mission, after the mission is accomplished. Politicians and the press do that. It's called rewriting history, just as editors here are often attempted to do.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Israel said it bombed the tunnel several days ago (i.e., prior to July 6), and Hamas men accidentally set off their own explosives when they returned to check the damage. Nishidani provided a dead link, but in the IDF source the same point is made: Hamas explosives went off "causing a massive blast that killed seven Hamas operatives. The terrorists likely planned to use the explosives to carry out an attack against Israel." Given the confusing nature of the reports, both conflicting claims should be included. On a related note, the body of the article claims the strike was on the house of a Hamas operative, another conflicting claim, although I have no idea what it could be based on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume for the moment the IDF source Nishidani and you are talking about is accurate. I am not sure how you are reading the IDF source. It says: "The IDF targeted a Hamas tunnel early Monday morning, preventing an imminent terror threat to Israeli citizens...At the time of the strike, terrorists inside the tunnel were working with explosives, causing a massive blast that killed seven Hamas operatives." How does this translate to an air strike several days before? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I did not say the IDF source concurred with the July 7 Reuters report on the timing of the airstrike. "Military spokesman Lerner said the militants had died when explosives went off in a tunnel that Israel had bombed several days ago, fearing gunmen planned to use it to try and penetrate into Israel." Lerner's comments on the IDF Blog do appear to contradict his statements elsewhere the same day. Does that mean Wikipedia editors should presume to know all the facts about this matter?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course WP editors should not presume to know all the facts. The aim should be to reflect WP:RS on the topic. But this does not mean that every narrative (I hate that word) has equal validity. Something does not become correct if one side claims it. Due weight needs to be given, not just mindless he said/she said. At the moment, multiple neutral, reliable sources state that it was an Israeli airstrike on 6 July which killed the militants. If some other sources come along, they can be included. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived discussion about explosives

The recent edits by Monopoly31121993 are problematic. I have fixed the first part but mostly what's needed now is the other one which was deleted about the situation in the West Bank. Just behind the info is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't include it. Thirdly, don't add a fact tag without any reason given at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Merging from below)

@Monopoly31121993: You made three edits to the lead. One of them has been reverted at the time I write this, but I will still try to address all of them.

• edit1 You add "dubious" tag based on "Hamas" claims. Firstly, the claim comes from the Ministry of Interior and is attributed there. It was also reported by Channel 4 news, as indicated in the second source, again with attribution. The dubious tag should be removed for these reasons alone. Secondly, there is little reason to doubt the 20,000 figure. For example, see this source (I included it in the article afterwards), which quotes an estimate that 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone, a figure which does not include tank/artillery shells.
• edit2 - There is no requirement for having a source which is not behind a paywall for verifiability. See WP:PAYWALL. Use Resource Exchange to verify the information or use the Talk page etc.
• edit3 - You added a POV tag. For placing a POV tag, one has to open a discussion on the talk page, detailing what is not neutral. Otherwise, anyone can remove the tag. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that you can find the cached version of the Haaretz articles by searching on Google so you don't have to pay. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the edits should be reverted for the reasons stated here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM:@Kingsindian:The Ministry of Interior's claim provided no information on how it arrived at that figure and it clearly seems to be fabricated and probably qualifies as a fringe theory. Just think about this. There were around 5,000 Israeli strikes on Gaza. The average bomb weighs 500 pounds therefore the average strike consisted of 16 bombs hitting a target. The biggest bombs weigh 2,000 pounds so in that case the average strike would have been 4 massive bombs hitting a target. Does that sound reasonable or fabricated? We've all read the news reports of these strikes and never have I read a report of 16 500 bombs falling on a target, even shelling normally consists of between 1-2 and 10 shells. I have also read reports of even smaller bombs than 500 pound bombs being used against targets. Without some sort of transparency, I would certainly call this claim dubious. Why something so clearly biased and unsupported by neutral verifiable facts needs to be introduction is unclear.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Your calculations, even if they were correct, would be WP:OR. As it happens, they are not correct. In just one arena (Shujaiyya), 7,000 high explosive shells were dropped. Also, I have already given a "neutral" estimate of 10,000 tonnes dropped from the air alone in the military section. As to transparency, I would have taken that argument seriously if you also had tagged the IDF numbers in the lead, which are just as opaque. If we report the IDF claim, we report the Palestinian claim, which has been quoted by Channel 4 news, and a partial estimate quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: It's not WP:OR because I never even suggested that I was putting it into the text. All I was doing was demonstrating how anyone could see how such a claim was obviously fabricated. Btw I don't think the channel 4 report which cited an unnamed and now deceased bomb disposal expert as its source meet Wikipedia requirements of a verifiable source. I think we can all agree that cable TV news anchors will say whatever they want to get ratings. Also, just so you know this is the largest artillery in WWII Krupp K5, its shells weighed around 500 lbs. A typical shell today weighs about 50 lbs. (see,M101 howitzer). As always Kings, I'm willing to discuss this with you but this seems to be blatantly fringe theory/ propaganda produced by one of the governments fighting a war and looking to get as much support as it can.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The guy was unnamed but he was identified as the head of the bomb disposal squad in Gaza, and he is named in the other source I cited. Anyway, the fact that you added the dubious tag based on your calculations is what is wrong and WP:OR. If your argument is that media will report anything to get ratings, then let's start by deleting half the article which is based on media reports quoting the IDF, including the sentence just before this one. And I again note the source I mentioned earlier, which is neutral, saying 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone, a figure which does not include tank/artillery shells. If you have other estimates of bombs dropped on Gaza, feel free to discuss them, but this kind of handwaving and second-guessing of sources is not sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the unexplained removal from the lead. Also, the dubious tag has not been explained, except for a feeling based wholly on WP:OR calculations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:This does not belong in the lead. It is a completely one sided statement of unverifiable facts from the Hamas government in Gaza. I kept the information and even added the Gaza government's remarks about how many bombs and shells were fired (WHICH YOU REMOVED...). Just to be clear here. I deleted nothing. I moved the content to the bottom the page and expanded it with additional information. Please revert your edit immediately and by the way you have just reverted 4 items on this page in less than half an hour. Slow down.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have only reverted twice, as far as I can see. The other one was an IP which does not count. (still I have self-reverted for now). As to your arguments that it is "one-sided", I am not sure why you don't apply that to the IDF figures which form the sentence just before this. I have asked you twice and you never responded. For some reason you continue insisting that these figures are dubious, even after I added a neutral estimate of 10,000 tonnes dropped which only counts the aerial bombing. If you feel it is dubious, you need to provide sources which claim otherwise. This kind of reasoning that it comes from the "Hamas govt. in Gaza" so it is automatically dubious will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)— Kingsindian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Kingsindian: There is no balance in terms of figures of bomb tonnage and therefore this only belongs in the Weapons section and not in the introduction. Also it needs to show the entire claim of 70,000 artillary shells (1.5 per minute for the entire conflict) and 7,000 bombs (20 per hour). The claim is dubious strait away. Your denials here looking more and more like Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: You can keep insisting without evidence that it is dubious, however, that counts for precisely nothing. Regarding your point that there are no figures for bomb tonnage for the Israeli side, that is totally irrelevant. The previous sentence, which you studiously continue to ignore, is wholly based on IDF figures, and gives the number of rockets fired. Each rocket obviously weighs less than a ton, and as mentioned elsewhere most carry an explosive load of 10-20 kg, so a tonnage figure would give something vastly less. I find it very strange that you don't see a long sentence wholly quoting the IDF and using their terms of reference (strikes vs rockets) -- even though a strike can drop multiple bombs -- while a Palestinian source quoting tonnage (backed by an independent estimate) is automatically dubious and POV pushing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Unarchived discussion)

I can't find Israeli statements on the total amount of explosives used. This claims that by from the beginning of the operation by 9th of July total of 400 tonnes was dropped. 200 tonnes per day, extrapolated to 50 days (both probably way too high, since the bombardment wasn't as heavy for the whole time as during the first days, and of course didn't last for whole 50 days) gives a total of 1000 tonnes, far cry from the claimed 20,000. A video of an demolition of a tunnel using 11 tonnes of explosives was widely distributed as something out of the ordinary - but even supposing that this is the amount used for each of the 32 tunnels, it gives a total of only 352 tonnes. Unfortunately my guestimates are good only to get the feeling that the numbers of both sides aren't likely to agree. WarKosign (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this spokesperson for a violent militant group as a good enough reliable source for writing in the lead without disclaimer -- I do believe they were rejected for the info box (yes they were) on account of ridiculousness of their statements. Plus, I disagree with hypocritical abuse of ideas (even if I disagree with said ideas). You cannot say the lead is stable, rejecting others' edits, abstain from explaining what you consider stable[2] -- and then insert your preferences in there without proper discussion.[3] At least abide by your own theory about the so called 'stable' lead (even if I think it is a bad theory and will pursue this discussion further within the wikipedia community in the future in order to persuade that it is wrong). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I am not sure of your point. The estimate was quoted by Channel 4 news, and comes from the bomb disposal squad. It is correctly attributed. Also I gave another source given above, in particular the Sydney Morning Herald, which estimates that 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone. This does not count tank/artillery/naval shells. About the tank/artillery shells, there are other estimates: this says just the land forces used perhaps 60 percent of the 5,000 tons of ammunition given to them, again a very preliminary estimate. There are also other partial estimates, like this one which says that 3,000 tons were dropped in the first 15 days. Here is another AP source, again quoting the Interior Ministry for tank/naval/artillery shells, estimate is 10,000. To Marciu, there is no reason to simply remove the figure because one dislikes the source. Kingsindian (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I think the statement is genuine and is correctly attributed, so it should be represented. At the moment there is no numbers by the other side, but my point above was that they are likely to appear and to be lower. Here "according to the military analyst Alex Fishman, about 3,000 tons of explosives have been dropped on Gaza in the first 15 days of the conflict" - this is not a complete number, but seems to point towards a lower value. Once there are complete estimates/details from IDF they should be mentioned to balance the 10K tons figure. I don't think this source is reliable enough to mention but it gives an opinion on how the numbers of artillery shells are over-estimated.WarKosign (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Ok, that is good. As to the 3,000 figure, that refers to only stuff dropped from the air: see this. Extrapolating from 3,000 in 15 days to the total 50 days campaign, the 10,000 estimate by Sydney Morning Herald is pretty good. We don't know the estimates of artillery/naval/tank shells other than the ones quoted by AP and Channel 4 news, attributed to the Palestinian interior ministry. Kingsindian (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I don't think linear extrapolation is correct here. Last 2 or 3 weeks of the operations there were nearly no airstrikes, so even assuming that the high rate of bombardment of the aerial phase continued into the ground invasion phase it still can't be more than 6-7 kilotons total. Either way, both our attempts to extrapolate is pure OR and useless. WarKosign (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I only gave the extrapolation as a rough estimation. The 10,000 figure is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald. Kingsindian (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the blown up head of bomb disposal the same as "Ministry of Interior" just because his department is part of the Ministry? Also, why would we use Hamas figures as if they qualify as a normative figure when there's so many examples that figures and casualty analysis are used by Hamas as a weapons? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: If there is a reliable source (at least as reliable as Hamas controlled MoI) that comments on correctness of these numbers, it would be most appropriate to add it. Otherwise, why not include this claim as long as it's properly attributed and referenced ? It is not WP:POV if it's attributed and especially if you can add a balancing comment by the opposing POV, and it's not quite WP:FRINGE since it is reported by multiple (clearly pro-Hamas) sources. Note that a source that only comments on how Hamas has the habit of manipulating numbers and not on this specific number is not good, since it would be WP:SYNTH to imply that that commentary applies to this number as well.WarKosign (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Please read WP:POINT. It is not permissible to disruptively edit to make a point. I have given multiple estimates, some independent, some based on Ministry of Interior figures, above, and the statement in the lead is accurately attributed. This is the second time you have reverted based on flimsy grounds, against consensus. The ministry of interior is the agency which put out the information which came from an estimate from the bomb disposal squad. These estimates are already present in the military section below. I invite you to self-revert. If not, I will be reluctantly forced to escalate this to WP:AE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, as usual. You turn to threats to (try) gain an upper hand.[4] On point: Where on this thread has anyone other than you said this source was a good idea? I see quite a discussion but no clear consensus. Reinserting Hamas claims into the 2nd paragraph, without proper disclaimer that they officially use numbers as a weapon (your own source[5] has a clear example of this: "in 45 days you only manage to kill women and children"), is quite problematic and there was good reason their numbers-abuse tactic was rejected for the info box. Another important note: I looked at both sources used and the people in the Hamas explosives department (fantastic euphemism) are not "Ministry of Interior" ("from the head of Gaza's bomb disposal unit"[6]) but only a small department. You want to start an AE thread right after promoting the use of a cartoon for history and failing to properly cite from your source? (forget about consensus building -- you want to use AE as a weapon to impose your view). To the actual material: If WarKosign sees it as fitting, I will concede and allow it being mentioned -- albeit, notice who you are citing. It is not the "Ministry" that's giving the numbers. At least not in the two sources you provided. Use sources properly. Build consensus. Stop gate-keeping behavior. And for god's sake - reconsider your idea that a cartoon based on 50 year old stories is a good source for a history article "If you find other sources contradicting the facts" (facts = 50 year old stories that make Israel look bad and the comic-"journalist" himself says "that people are confused"). Last but not least, I remind that you should strive to gain consensus. Don't make threats when you don't. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea what you're talking about: "The explosives' engineering police of the Gaza Ministry of Interior said in a statement that Israel had dropped 20,000 tons of explosives on the 139 square mile (360 sq km) territory." How is that not the ministry of interior? As to making threats, it was not a threat, it was a courtesy. I was warning you, that if you do not self-revert, I will go to WP:AE. It is the way things work here: people politely ask others to fix things, and nobody gets hurt. If they are stubborn, people get reported, and often both parties get hurt. I have no interest in reporting you, because I don't want to waste the time, or run the risk of getting hurt myself. Kingsindian (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A revert would be to reinsert your mistaken idea that a small department inside a ministry equals the whole ministry. Also note that the second source only mentions a single person, the dead "head of Gaza's bomb disposal unit". As I said before, if WarKosign now shows his acceptance for inserting this material, I am willing to concede -- but please, don't be silly, and claim that "explosives' engineering police" and/or "head of Gaza's bomb disposal unit" is the same as the 'Ministry of Interior'. I hope you now noticed the word Ministry doesn't even appear in the second source. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Would "an official in the Gazan Ministry of Interior" or "a bomb disposal expert in the Gazan Ministry of Interior" be acceptable to you both ? I already wrote above that I think this claim is notable enough to inserted, and once there is a statement by the IDF on the same subject they should be juxtaposed. WarKosign (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The latter is reasonable. Doesn't imply something that's not there. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this, "The ordnance team for the Gaza Ministry of Interior stated that..." Kingsindian (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No intention to be rude. Is English your native language? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I notice that you still haven't reverted. I will give it 24 more hours. Kingsindian (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: you have to stop with the threats. I will not insert an incorrect version just because you feel slighted. Now. I've asked you about English, because you've misread (again, no disrespect intended) the new source you provided. ordnance team within the Palestinian police force reported in an exclusive statement for the Ministry of Interior (MOI) website -- A small department in the Police made a statement for the website. There is no such thing as an "ordnance team for the Gaza Ministry of Interior". Since this was, apparently, on the website, we can mention the Ministry -- but, obviously, a Ministry doesn't have their own private bomb squad (maybe in Hamas' case it's not THAT obvious... but still -- that's not what the source said). Try to be less threatening (revert or else!) and read the sources properly. PLEASE! (gosh dang it). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I regard these objections as simply filibustering. In the original response (dated 16:05, 21 September 2014), you made no reference to this "Ministry of Interior" vs a "department inside Ministry of Interior" issue, which is totally trivial. Your other objections being addressed, you switch over to a petty objection. I will not be arguing forever about silly things like this, and do not take kindly to have to introduce the same material 3 times. Kingsindian (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your history of disregard is duly noted. Nonetheless, I am unsure why you are using a big word like 'filibustering' when I already agreed to one of the versions suggested by WarKosign. My objection to the idea that the Ministry hired a private ordnance squad is more than reasonable -- non of the sources say this. Now. How about "According to an official working in the Palestinian Police bomb disposal department..."? This leaves out the silly website issue and sounds very official and neutral. What say you? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: This is not a forum for endless discussions. I do not consider this matter important enough to discuss more. I suggest this: self-revert, and if you consider this issue important enough, open an RfC to change the description. I will not be responding any more. My threat or warning as before remains in force. Kingsindian (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm not sure what to make of these repeated threats and have asked for administrative review. I hope the threats will stop. I have stated above my acceptance of one of the versions and have also added another suggestion which I personally prefer but will not insist upon. Kingsindian, the ball is in your park. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck?

@Tritomex: diff. Where did the "Palestinian origin" come from, and why is it important? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It gives a reason why other reporters did not report being interrogated by Hamas. WarKosign (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what that means exactly. Anyway, I can't even find where the French reporter is said to be of Palestinian origin. The whole sentence should be expunged anyway, given that the story itself was removed afterwards. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow why not being of Palestinian origin would make other reporters not report being interrogated by Hamas. I did, however, find and add a reference that describes Abu Dagga as "French-Palestinian" (the wording I've changed the article to use). I agree that the entire line could be trimmed out of the article; now that the conflict is over, we can see that the Abu Dagga issue didn't pan out into anything / have lasting significance. -sche (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant that maybe Hamas only interrogated him and not other journalists because they felt he is their subject while the others are foreigners. Pure speculation. WarKosign (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction

• 1."Non Hamas factions",This term is simply unacceptable, as Palestinian militant groups (not factions) are not divided in to Hamas and non Hamas groups. So this has to be changed. The acceptable term would be Palestinian militant factions (without Hamas) if there are WP:RS source, beside Hamas claims, that Hamas indeed did not fire rockets in this period.
• 2. While all institutions, (Palestinian and international) claims regarding the victims are mentioned in lead, the claim of Mahmud Abbas regarding 800 Hamas members, killed by Israel and 160 Palestinian civilians and 30 alleged collaborators killed by Hamas, has also to be be mentioned in lead per WP:NPOV.--Tritomex (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your exact suggestion ? If it's "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which Palestinian miltants began after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members.", I agree.

Regarding #2: I assume you mean the infobox numbers. Abbas's numbers are not a complete report of all the casualties in the operation so I don't see how it belongs there. His numbers are mentioned in the casualties section where there is more room to discuss. WarKosign (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

'Non Hamas factions' is there because a very good source uses that designation, and absolutely nothing, other than cogging the dice of our prose with a generic, blame-all 'Palestinian' adjective, is gained by rewriting the source language. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I checked dozens of sources regarding this and other incidents, and the most common designation is exactly, "Palestinian militants". Nowhere, I saw in all this years such designation as "Non Hamas factions", nor is such term used. If one exception exists in one sources, that can not invalidate the widely used terminology and plenty of other sources."
• I did not prefer to put Abbas numbers in info box. I think this has to be mentioned in form of prose (in one sentence) , after the following claim "Between 2,000[24] and 2,143[20] Gazans were killed (including 495–578 children)" Btw this numbers also have to be properly attributed to Gaza Hamas health ministry.--Tritomex (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Newspeak counts for nothing. Most newspapers used a boilerplate idiom. The source in question is of far higher quality, since it comes from a major regional independent analyst, and is not the lazy hackwork of day to day sources. We are narrating a specific event, and to try to smudge its specificity ('As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity.') by hackneyed phraseology that could apply to any situation over 10 years is ridiculous. The article is already laughable POV, and exaggerating this further is pointless. Your proposal is to be automatically rejected because by replacing the given term, the reader is led to assume the distinction between Hamas and other militants did not exist. I.e. by saying 'Palestinian militants' the text intimates that Fatah, Hamas (all 'Palestinian militants') and any other group were collectively involved, which is to be demonstrated (and even denied by Israeli official sources for the June period)Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

To Tritomex: I find your logic hard to follow. If some outlets call them "Palestinian militants" without distinction, and others distinguish them, why take the less precise version? Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Rocket fire by non-Hamas fractions" sounds awkward. Fractions don't fire, militants belonging to them do. OTOH, "Rocket fire by militants not belonging to Hamas" is too long.

As for the all-so-important "Hamas didn't fire" - they are in control (sorry, "rule") of Gaza, so any fire by "non-Hamas fractions" is still their responsibility. This distinction makes it sound as if as long as it wasn't Hamas who took responsibility for the rockets it was only target practice and not an attempt to murder civilians. WarKosign (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

'Fractions don't fire', true, infinitesimally, but 'factions fire'.This is vexatious hairsplitting, apart from being silly English. The text everywhere has Hamas launched, and Israel is the subject of active verbs, and it is bizarre that you say an exception to this usage is required in this particular sentence. ('Israel halted construction material going to Gaza' etc. 'No! Israeli government employees halted material' etc.

The second point repeats an insistant equivocation here. Israel is responsible for area C therefore every act of illegality in Area C is the direct responsibility of the Israeli government? (which will of course be indicted for the kidnapping of the Khdeir boy?).

And could you please drop the nonsense that 'every Gaza rocket' is directly aimed to murder 'civilians'. They are aimed into Israeli territory for numerous reasons, not least of which is to create the panic that is normative for Gazans, and disrupt the economy and those who fire them know the percentages. Most explode without striking soldiers nor civilians. Which cannot be said for Israeli armaments, which consistently do both.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The emphasis on "non-Hamas factions" was added, as Nishidani's response more or less concedes, to "educate" readers who may have drawn the wrong conclusions about this conflict. It is not an indefensible use of language, but it is silly to pretend that most mainstream sources use such terminology, or that Wikipedia should present the "truth" over the view of mainstream sources. It is, indeed, a rather odd approach to frame the narrative in terms of which factions did not fire. It would be like discussing the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by reference to the 9/11 attacks, which were perpetrated by "non-Taliban factions". Nishidani's preposterous theories aside, Hamas is clearly responsible under international law for terrorist activities emanating from territory it controls. There are numerous UN General Assembly Resolutions, from the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (which forbids "acquiescing [by a state] in organized activity within its territory" aimed at "fomenting civil war or committing terrorist acts in another state") to the Convention on the Protection of Diplomats (which refers to the responsibility of states to take all "practicable steps to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of [terrorist] crimes within or outside their territories"), which make it perfectly clear that the mere toleration of armed groups seeking to attack another country is a violation of international law. His point about the murder of the Palestinian teenager--yet one more attempt at soapboxing by the editor who posted walls of text attempting to obfuscate the indisputable fact that Hamas makes widespread use of civilian human shields by referencing an Israeli lawmaker's never-enacted suggestion to use Hamas/Islamic Jihad terrorists as shields and crimes allegedly committed by Israeli troops leading to their subsequent indictment and conviction, and who turned a discussion of US attitudes towards Hamas into a lengthy condemnation of American foreign policy post-WW2 and the invasion of Iraq in particular--is rather silly. The three Jewish teenagers were killed by a Hamas cell sponsored by a Hamas charity run by the Hamas government in Gaza, and their killing was praised by Hamas leaders who had sponsored many dozens of abduction attempts in the previous year and took no action to punish the perpetrators, whereas the Israeli government condemned the killing of the Palestinian teenager and arrested those responsible. There is no equivalence. Even Goldberg and Thrall (Nishidani's preferred sources) state that the upsurge in rocket fire was caused by Hamas' refusal to restrain it, as they had during previous ceasefires, although both attempt to offer reasonable rationalizations for why this was so. (We are, of course, omitting the Israeli claim that Hamas was directing the rocket fire by the end of June.) I apologize for digressing, but I wasn't the first to stray. I do not feel particularly strongly about "non-Hamas factions", although as mentioned it is a somewhat unusual designation of responsibility based on a single source (Thrall).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from caricature. I did not add anything to 'educate readers', which is, to the contrary, what you appear to be doing. Many sources say Israel and Gazan factions 'traded fire' throughout June, after the onset of the West Bank purge, and Hamas then, whatever its actual directivs (unknown so far) assumed formal responsibily for all rocket fire on its territory after the 7 died (in circumstances that are unclear). I have absolutely no knowledge of where the truth lies in all of these narratives. The Israeli newspapers which form the basis for most of our sourcing are unreliable and conflicted. Your own 'narrative' thoroughly reproduces as a truth one conclusion you are endeavouring to edit into the text, and you keep repeating nonsensical WP:OR positions ('Israeli claim that Hamas was directing the rocket fire by the end of June') which make engagement with your POV pushing for a 'truth' version (identical with one position in several Israeli accounts) of events. When you have this kind of mess, the right thing is to privilege specialist analytic sources, and that is why Thrall is important, because he is relatively 'neutral', as his credibility is one the line if he screws up (the credibility of day to day journalistic hackwork is never 'problematized' here. Thrall's analysis is more credible because it is a pattern noted by many otherwise decidedly partisan analysts in Israel that on assuming power Hamas no longr acted like an erratic asymmetric guerilla group, but fired, and made known its policy about firing, rockets strictly in terms of the perceived dictates of its interests in contextual politics. It is said consistently to do so in response to what it interprets as attacks on its infrastructure and has so since 2008

The message points to several interesting developments in Hamas’ military operations since the latest round of fighting began in the south. Firstly, Hamas is launching rockets and claiming responsibility. This may sound strange to strange, at least to people who think that Hamas has been behind the rocket fire over the past couple of years. But the facts show something else entirely: since Operation Cast Lead, Hamas has almost completely refrained from firing rockets into Israel. April 2011 was the last time that Hamas officially took part in rocket fire. Even during the last round of fighting in March of this year, Hamas remained outside the clashes with Israel, and refrained from firing rockets. Moreover, Hamas established a special security mechanism to be in charge of stopping other Gazan organizations from launching rockets. The second fact that arises from the internet message is that Hamas is acting like an organized military: its members are aiming at military bases near the border with Gaza, rather than at civilian targets. Moreover, the organization is restricting its members to firing rockets strictly at targets near Gaza (aside from one instance), but the other Palestinian organizations that have joined the fighting have been firing rockets at civilian targets. Most of rockets have been launched at military bases or other security forces – a new method of operation for the organization. If until now it has refrained from launching rockets into Israel, it is clear that over the past two days, Hamas has changed the rules of the game and will only launch rockets at military targets.. Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, 'Hamas' change of strategy: Rocket fire directed at Israeli military targets,' Haaretz June 20, 2012.

All of this may be wrong of course. If, like ttaac you google Hamas+rockets+ and any date 2008-June 2014 you will get an abundance of sloppy boilerplate reportage 'proving' Hamas was behind rocket attacks. The IDF consistently struck Hamas throughout this period (see any of your Palestinian rockets into Israel articles). Those sources are immediate journalistic repeats of a meme (every rocket is aimed at 'civilians' is another). But what analysts from within Shin Bet, Israeli newspapers and international strategic studies jars with this slipshod mechanical attribution and state that thre is a 'rational' pattern for Hamas-specific military operations. Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, TheTimesAreAChanging said all relevant facts. The problem with this phrase is terminological and factual. Regarding factual accuracy, this dubious phrase is used here to present a claim of one side, as an established fact. More so, the source point out itself to Hamas responsibility for rocket firing, something that seems to be omitted by selective citing of this source. Further, regarding terminological issues, no other source ever used this dubious phrase for division of Palestinian militant groups. Therefore, this division is a terminological artificial construct, aimed in this context, to abolish Hamas for any responsibility, a claim which is not supported even by this source. The inclusion of this claim did not have consensus from beginning, and for months the majority of editors are pointing to this and other problems with this phrase. --Tritomex (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So Tritomex dsputes the ability of Nathan Thrall to get his facts and language right. Thrall is RS, we are not.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the whole section. I agree with you. If there's no answer in the coming days, I think we should replace the "non-Hamas factions" for "Palestinian militants".--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a voting forum. You must adducee arguments why the distinction made in many sources between Hamas as executive power and wildcard militants, one maintained by numerous Israeli sources as well as analysts like Thrall, must be abolished (it mystifies a consistent distinction made in reportage by specialists since 2008 see above).Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The source cited above (Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff) does not support the terminological qualification, nor the claims made in the text regarding Palestinian militant groups. I agree with Wlglunight93, this dubious phrase can not remain, for the reasons stated above. Based on comments and arguments presented, most of editors share my opinion. --Tritomex (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. Hands thrown up in despair, hair thickening on thin stilts of horrid surprise. I did not cite that article for the term you contest. You are challenging a strong source's terminology, which you are not supposed to do. I cited the article for the point TTAAC made, to explain why the distinction many POV-pushers here wish to obliterate is standard in serious works on the conflict, and explains why our text, using Thrall and other sources, retains a distinction. Got that? If not, reread the section slowly.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In short, to reduce this nonsense to elementary school paraphrase, since Palstinian militants(set A) also refers to Hamas (subset of A), to replace 'non-Hamas factions' with 'Palstinian militants' is to attribute by logical implication the firing of rockets over June to Hamas, against what the sources say. This 'strategy' of blurring, of creating fuzzy language to insinuate a POV that is fringe, gets the article nowhere, except in dumbing down the text.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do we not specify who did fire, such as Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian militants? And please come up with something better than your earlier claim that the phrase "Palestinian militants" is racist demonization.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

'your earlier claim that the phrase "Palestinian militants" is racist demonization'.

This is the nth time you have made a wild caricature of my positions. Please give me the diff where I putatively make such a claim.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Because, it is the way it is described in WP:RS. "non-Hamas" (Thrall) "Gaza splinter groups" (Hendrickson), "outlier groups" (John Judis). This has been discussed 10 times at least: there will be no further comments from me. Open an RfC on "non-Hamas" if you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Idem. Cf.WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re suggestion 1: As others have said above, we have a quality reference that specifies the people who were launching rockets; you refer to sources which are vaguer. I don't think (or see why) we should replace the specific info with vague info (indeed, misleadingly over-vague info that implies, contrary to what the sources say, that Hamas fired rockets prior to the date specified). Re suggestion 2: IMO, the best place for Abbas' numbers is the the article body (where they are). They don't belong in the infobox with the numbers from organizations because, for one thing, the other numbers are (as just said) from organizations, whereas Abbas is making a personal estimation, and for another thing, Abbas' numbers are (as mentioned above) incomplete and somewhat orthogonal to what the rest of the numbers are about, whereas the other numbers are all (claimed to be, provisionally) complete figures for how many Palestinians were killed in the conflict. In turn, I think it would be giving Abbas undue weight to single his personal estimation out as worthy of mention in the lead alongside the generalized ranges of organizations' figures. -sche (talk)

I think it boils down to a question: are there reliable sources that say that Hamas was firing rockets before July 7? 3 options:

1. No - end of discussion. Perhaps we can think how to replace "non-Hamas fractions" with something better sounding that would still mean "Palestinian militants who are not officially affiliated with Hamas".
2. Yes, but by few/lesser sources - falls under WP:FRINGE. May be mentioned in the article body, but not in the lead.
3. Yes, by several mainstream sources - the lead should not state a disputed claim as a fact. Either mention both versions or use the ambiguous "Palestinian militants" in the lead and detail both versions in the body.

If it's #1 it's a simple factual check. Between #2 and #3 it's a judgement call that people are likely to disagree upon, so it may need an RfC. WarKosign (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And now I see that #1 is not an option because of these sources.WarKosign (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers"

This claim has multiple problems. Those "non Hamas factions" did not began firing after after the Israeli crackdown, as they fired rockets all year long. See Wikipedia Palestinian rocket atacks, so I am changing began into intensified, if there is no objection. My proposed wording is "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which different Palestinian militant groups, officially not affiliated with Hamas, intensified after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers"

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

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

---

Should or shouldn't Hamas claims of soldiers killed be included in the infobox? There are two versions which keep getting added and deleted.

• Newer version: HAMAS: 1000 soldier killed, 2000 soldier wounded
• An older version: Hamas:161 soldiers killed

References

Please indicate: Yes or No. If Yes, indicate which version you prefer.

• Comment I have no feeling one way or another. But pinging Zaid almasri since he keeps adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• No. The sources are crap, and silly propaganda claims have no place in an infobox, as opposed to a disinfobox.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The second one. Anadolu Agency is an acceptable source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No one here is disputing it is Hamas' claim, WarKosign, so I don't understand your point. It is therefore it is written: "Hamas: 161 soldiers killed", just as we have IDF's claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that the other number was from the same source as it's different sites but okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. This claim contradicts all the evidence from all the other sources, and in fact implies there is a conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media as well as 930 families of the supposed hidden casualties. This claim belongs with the rest of the dubious claims made by Hamas at the the media sub-page's special section. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The first one (1,000 KIA). While it's a round number it is not unusual for belligerents in a conflict to release estimates of the enemy's casualties, not unlike the IDF also claiming "1,000 militants." DocumentError (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Hamas claim of 1000 soldier dead should be used since it is the newest and the 161 figure is outdated.

both IDF and HAMAS claims of how much they killed from the other side are estimates and of course both of them are inflated and ridiculous , but since it is attributed to them and not stated as a fact but rather as a claim it must be included and i will include it no matter what others do even if i keep adding it daily for one year , i have a very long breath.

If you dont want HAMAS claims so change the title to THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT.

HAMAS is one of the only two sides of the conflict so not including its claims make the articl out of balance and whatever you feel about them or about palestinians is irrelevant, Imagine if HAMAS were at a justice court wouldnt the judge hear their claims or would he say : listen terrorists i will not hear from you and i will sentence you to so and so

IRISZOOM ANADOLU is the same source for both claims but the 161 is old and this one is newer check this

http://www.aa.com.tr/ar/s/379950

https://twitter.com/aa_arabic/status/504659476260331520

I like the fact that you discribed the agency as an accepted source i guess if you knew that the 1000 figure is also from them you would have changed your mind HaHa.

.Zaid almasri (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. The infobox is for a quick overview. Sources for info there should have at least minimal reliability. Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability. But including it somewhere in the article makes sense, though I don't think that Islamic/Hezballah/Turkish site is sufficient even for there. I don't know what to make of AlWatan, it would be better if there were English sources for that. ¤ ehudshapira 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability." Why? DocumentError (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On one hand a history of fabrications, and no credible publication even mentions this. On the other, the Israeli info is so much far off from these claims, and so much more reliable and better accounted for, that mentioning in the overview, for the sake of "impartiality", the info from dubious sites that supposedly quote Hamas' claims just makes no sense. ¤ ehudshapira 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, don't put it in the infobox, per ehudshapira. Multiple reliable sources affirm the 65–66 number (for which reason I have removed, as others have in the past, the mischaracterization of the numbers as "IDF"); the Hamas claim is an outlier. It's not clear that the sources for it are reliable (i.e. it's not clear they are reliable as sources of the claim "Hamas says X", independent of the truth/verifiability of "X"); even if they are, the Hamas claim of soldiers killed belongs with Hamas' other dubious claims, either in a section of this article's body (as was the case in early incarnations of this article, and should perhaps be made the case once more) or in the separate media article (as is the case at the moment). -sche (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• No - Hamas' data is propaganda. It's not as reliable as the other sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - There are people who say the Earth is flat, but in Wikipedia we don't consider this claim more than a fringe and hilarious theory. Let's keep this article serious and encyclopedic, please.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Neither First off, Hamas is a recognized governmental entity which had been duly and legitimatly elected through Democratic processes and as such numbers that Hamas agencies report have as much weight and legitimacy as any governmental enity (i.e. no legitimacy at all.) Secondly, playing the numbers game is what politicians and corporate entities do, and when it comes to body counts no claim is even remotely accurate regardless of its source. Recommend employing more accurate rhetoric such as "The number of dead terrorists were claimed to be anywhere from xxx to xxx." Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you say. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't lie when it counts its own casualties (both military and civilian). Hamas is a different thing. And with all due to respect to the democratically-elected islamofascist government of Hamas, remember they took Gaza in a bloody coup. I'm just saying... throwing your opponents from the roof is not the most exquisite sample of democracy, if i may say so.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a very neutral argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral at all, but doesn't mean it's not true. There is plenty of evidence that Hamas provides wildly inaccurate claims and never bother to correct themselves or explain their mistakes. IDF provides facts that are usually correct and admits and corrects its mistakes when they are discovered. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise ? WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that Hamas are liars but Israel is not. I'm sure someone on pro-Palestine side can spin the Vice versa. I've actually seen the wiki end of this war play out. Just because its not neutral doesn't mean it's true? Perhaps but I'm going bother entertaining your argument because of your inherent bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An article can include both contradictory POV even when it is obvious that at least one of them is false. They have to have minimal credibility. This claim contradics all the evidence of any other source, so it should be treated as a fringe theory - something perhaps worth mentioning, but not at the same level as the respectable theories. For this claim to be feasible there would have to be a huge conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media, as well as the 930 families of the supposed IDF casualties that are suppressed. WarKosign (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's not glaringly obvious. I actually have no position here. That being why I've yet to clarify a position. I'm reviewing some of the comments here and also a number of sources on the subject. In reviewing the comments I came across an editor who seems to push the thought that since Hamas were violent in coup unrelated in every way to this article's subject matter they are unreliable. Really it's off topic BS. In my opinion intellectual dishonesty and as initially said not neutral. When discussing anothers credibility I do find somewhat important not to destroy your own. As I'm sure you're aware consensus is not democracy. [[7]] Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Don't poison the well you drink from.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So it seems the second set of numbers are older. The first set of numbers line up with other sources such as IDF sources. 1000 soldiers per Hamas means the same thing as 1000 militants per IDF. It seems credible to me. It seems also just as reliable as the IDF as a source. Though the reliablity of both parties seems questionable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't laughed so hard in a while. The above discussion is akin to saying the 9/11 Truth movement is as reliable as official US investigations. Sure, both cannot be fully trusted... but c'mon!!! The comparison is too silly. Just look how much space their claims have in September 11 attacks. On this article, we can't ignore the claims completely. But to insist they (e.g. Osama Hamdan, or this "Research the history, my brothers. <antisemitic slogan>" genius on Hamas TV) are in the same ballpark as mainstream sources is hysterical. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion: add your !vote as Yes or No in addition to laughing. If the consensus is clear enough, this can be closed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to say yes or no. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I also don't mind if the source is left in or not. That being the first sources. The second source is outdated. The second source would certainly seem unreliable. As far as the above tangent, I'm sorry to inform that I will not take that into account. I wasn't making a comparison to mainstream sources. I was making a comparison to the IDF as a source. IDF (as well as others in Israel) propaganda has been well documented as well. If you insist on using the IDF as a source and these other editors insist on on the Hamas source then I fail to see the issue with it's inclusion. I'm sure you don't like it but it seems the other side doesn't like your views either.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No I made up my mind. The claims are dubious and the sources are crap. WP:FRINGE applies. This doesn't belong in the infobox. Kingsindian (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: if, when this RFC concludes, there is no consensus on whether or not the Hamas claims should be included, what happens? Is the default that disputed content is omitted unless there is consensus that it should be added, or is the default that disputed content is added unless there is consensus that it should be omitted? -sche (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In the event of "No consensus" it is my interpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS that it would remain. But then as I understand the inclusion of this source in the article prompted this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on the inclusion of the edit, so in my interpretation, the status quo would reign, i.e., it would not be included (point 2 in WP:NOCONSENSUS). Kingsindian (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not status quo but to what it was before the RFC was launched. I think this is specifically where the RFC was started. Though you could perhaps count the one edit before it. This being the closest edit to that in the article. It doesn't seem that the information in this RFC is there so yes it seems that this information would removed. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not always to the state that existed right before the RfC, otherwise one would make a disputed change and immediately launch an RfC on removing it that would end in no-consensus, and voila - the change stays.WarKosign (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be very easy to game such a policy (I don't think that is operative policy). Anyway, let's cross the "no consensus" bridge when we come to it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at other articles, I can say that yes, what matters is not the specific diff that immediately precedes the RFC, but the general status — had the information been stably present in the article for a long time? In this case, no, it was boldly added and quickly reverted (and then edit-warred over). -sche (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Since when do we take HAMAS claim as non-fringe?Forbidden User (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No We have multiple reliable sources citing a different number. There is no reason to include HAMAS' claim. They are the only ones reporting this number and it falls in line with WP:FRINGE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus. -sche (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually RfCs run for 30 days, though they can be closed before if consensus is clear. I have put a do not archive template to prevent archiving now. Kingsindian (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

1,000,000 instances of shock in Gaza

Certainly, there's a lot of shock in Gaza with the way Hamas took over and all the clashes that followed. The Gaza Mental Health Foundation, the source for the 1 in 5 statement, speak on their front page of a "quarter century" siege when asking for donations. The connection with the 50-day conflict (seems to slowly becoming the name for these clashes) is simply to suggest numbers are on the rise (a call for notability and more donations). Dr. James Gordon of the Washington-based Center for Mind-Body Medicine said One-third of Gazan children showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder even before the latest outbreak of fighting.[8] Also 1 in 10 is normal in western countries. 1 in 5 might be normal for Gaza, where the antisemitic[9] militant Islamist Hamas rules (I would bed wet as well if told my enemies were killing children to use the blood in Matzos, or straight up drink it - source: Author Danusha V. Goska). In short, this estimation is not a direct outcome of of the 50-day conflict and, as such, does not belong in the infobox -- it probably should be cited in the aftermath (with proper attribution). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC) +c source MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion above re casualties. It is quite hallucinating to watch as the Israeli casualties list is 'stacked' by statistics which count as 'wounded' people who sought treatment in hospitals during raids for shock. The point of my edit was simple. I didn't challenge the 800 'casualties'. I reclassified those as 'hurt' and noted the numbr in the list classified as suffering from 'shock'. But pr NPOV, if the Israeli casualties include people suffering from shock, we are obliged to find some parallel data for the situation of 'shock' in Gaza, and the WHO specialist puts that at 20% of the population. That is why your removal of the datum violats NPOV. The rest of your comments are irrelevant. If you keep splashing fring blogspot rubbish, which I doubt anyone but yourself views, it adds to the list of disruptive practices you engage in here.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Inserting problematic content, not its removal, violates NPOV. For starters, 1 in 5 is nothing special for a a territory under control of a terrorist group. To insert this statistic without qualification is a clear POV push that Israel, not Hamas, is responsible. To put it in the infobox is a further NPOV violation as the 50 day clash might have helped bring the numbers up a bit -- but they started high to begin with (see sources above). Last note: Danusha V. Goska has a PhD and is a respectable published author. Sad that you attack the source rather than address its content. Now, please review the material rather than call it "irrelevant". I'm sure not everyone will agree with you here. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You alone say it is 'problematic'. NPOV mans what is good for the goose is good for the gander, discursive parity. At the moment, Israel's hurt civilian list includes a taxonomy that is avoided for Palestinians, whose injured refer to physical wounds. What is problematic about the UN source? Please stop answering with personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless convincing reasons are given for privileging in the casualties statistics Israel's shock victims over any mention of the statistics for shock and distress caused by the war among Gazans, according to official calculations ('UNICEF has 50 psychologists and counsellors in Gaza reaching out to children directly impacted by loss. They have reached 3,000, but the needs are “staggering” as parents are also in a state of trauma, Ms. Ironside said, noting that today 373,000 Palestinian children need “immediate psycho-social first aid.”) it becomes obligatory to balance the equation. The details cited are in the following source: 'Gaza: UN says over 370,000 Palestinian children in need of 'psycho-social first aid',' UN News Centre 21 August 2014 which also states that on past experience 70-75% of the civilian population will suffer from mild to moderate post-traumatic reactions of various kinds. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Are you trying to make a WP:POINT ? If you feel that number of people suffering from shock does not belong in the infobox - I tend to agree. The unispal URL you provided gives me error 404, so I can't see if it relates specifically to OPE or to the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. If indeed 20% of Gaza population suffers from mental health problems it would explain a lot, but does the source connect this fact to the subject of this article ? In the URL you provided in this talk page, there is no such connection. I like how it says "return to hostilities" and "renewed violence" without mentioning which side violated the ceasefire. Very neutral and objective source. WarKosign (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

what has WP:POINT got to do with WP:NPOV? People who suffered shock and trauma are in the Israeli casualties list, so, by parity, people who suffered shock and trauma go into the Gaza casualties list. The other solution is to remove the additional Israeli statistic. Whatever, absolutely parity in data presentation is obligatory. The url I provide directly above takes you to a page directly referring to the Gaza war of July-August.

('If indeed 20% of Gaza population suffers from mental health problems it would explain a lot') It does indeed. That mental health in Gaza has twice the average of 'normal states' is the same as saying people in a gulag or a concentration camp, or even soldiers have higher rates of аффективно-шоковые реакции.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Is the equation really balanced when the Israeli number is directly relevant to the 50-day clashes and the Palestinian number isn't? That is not NPOV. Due to the loose connection made by the Gaza Mental Health Foundation (the source for this information) I'm ok with inserting this information in an aftermath section. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, like another editor on another page last night, you did not read the source.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I have skimmed both the source you provided and the original for the statements (I'm not going to check that other boring whiny page for an unrelated self-serving narrative). There is some minute connection to the 50 day clashes. Yes. But no point of reference and it clearly uses the events to peddle for donations rather than use it to register the rise from prior the events to post the events. An estimation that the final number will be 1 in 5, which neglects the starting point (which is probably the exact same number) is not equal to people requiring immediate care during the fighting. See also the sources I've noted above. e.g. 1 in 3 children is a number before the events. This from a source not peddling for immediate donations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia based on WP:AGF, but above all, by the ability to 'read' not 'skim' RS. The point you make is untenable if you have read ['Gaza: UN says over 370,000 Palestinian children in need of 'psycho-social first aid',' UN News Centre 21 August 2014 the source I cited]. You are repeatedly pushing objections past their use-by date and resolved stage. This has been intelligently resolved by Ekograf's edit, and his comment. I haven't even objected to the retention of figures for people who grazed their shins, or twisted their ankles, while running to a shelter, though it is improper. Stop wasting editors' time.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Your link is dead, but I have managed to find it nonetheless. I've come to realize it is a different source than the one you used in your original edit. Regardless, there is no number of mentally handicapped treatments linked directly to 50 days of clashes. My own proposal for compromise might not be the same as the one you pushed for with a pointy edit but it was given in good faith. Be cool. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My link works. Check your computer. I clicked and it gave me immediately:'there is not a single family in the tiny enclave that has not been touched by the current violence. The impact is has truly been vast, both at a very physical level, in terms of casualties, injuries, the infrastructure that's been damaged, but also importantly, emotionally and psychologically in terms of the destabilizing impact that not knowing, not truly feeling like there is anywhere safe place to go in Gaza,” (by the current violence = 50 days). Now, please stop wasting my time.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You're reading into the article something which is not there (see also Subjective validation). Try reading my opening statement again. This time with a little less disregard. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a separate section. This is already discussed in a section above, about Israeli wounded, isn't it? As I said there, being wounded is not binary like being dead, so methodology plays a big role. Perhaps the best thing to do is to remove the category "shock" from the infobox, and put both data points in the impacts section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I made an alteration, and it was, as is normative here, immediately removed. And the deleter opened this section. The category is 'wounds'. Wounds refer primarily to physical lacerations. I agree that the reference to shock effects should not be in the infobox. That is obvious. Casualties should deal with physical casualties.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is by definition WP:POINT - making an edit that you disagree with, only to make a point. You should not be doing it.WarKosign (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I didn't disagree with my edit. I disagreed with those who edited in that information. Given the automatic revert game used here (note I was immediately reverted), I had no option but to providee the noted NPOV balancing information. For once it had a salutary effect. A neutral party fixed the section, not perfectly since people who graze their shins or twist their ankles running for cover dont' suffer 'war related injuries', but, adequately. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will be clear on this issue as I was in the above section. The casualties section in the infobox is reserved for those suffering physical harm ONLY. Not everybody who got an anxiety attack due to a bomb falling near them. The section is even called casualties and the definition of civilian casualties (which is the case here) on Wikipedia that it is a military term describing civilians killed, injured, or imprisoned by military action. Any information about mental trauma, short-term or otherwise, can be talked about in the main body of the article within a dedicated paragraph. So... Agree with Nishidani, physical casualties only and agree with Kingsindian, both data points (on mental trauma) in the impacts section. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are many links to different references, including this: "NATAL, the Israeli trauma center, estimates that 750,000 victims of terror-related trauma live in Israel today.". Sure, this is trauma from all the rockets from Gaza (and other acts of terror) and not just from OPE, but so are the numbers for Palestinians. WarKosign (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Nice find. I hope others will review it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there useful bits in Abbas's and Netayahu recent UN speeches ?

Abbas and Netanyahu made speeches in the UN. I have not read both texts completely yet, there are probably some bits that can be added to this article. WarKosign (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've read both and don't think there is much value. Each leader claims the other side committed war crimes - so it could be added to alleged war crimes section, but I don't see much point, official positions are already represented.WarKosign (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent deletions

@TheTimesAreAChanging: You made several non-obvious changes recently with very little explanation in the comments, can you please explain the reasons ? [10] here you removed the fact that the raid was on the house of a Hamas operative, changed 7 killed people to "operatives" and removed two sources. Your comment was "Source misrepresentation", which implies that the remaining sources support the current statement - I do not see this, please explain. [11] here you removed hamas calling the incident "horrendous crime" and the comment says "Removed inaccurate conflation of different events". I think this source connects the events, why do you think they are different ? - 06:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The discussion about this is here. I would have preferred just separating out the two incidents, as before. The last comment was after the launch of OPE, so it should not be in the "immediate events" section. I am not averse to dumping it entirely, since it is just one statement made out of many. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I gave anyone who wished to correct the material adequate time before I deleted it outright.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Further items requiring consideration

Jonathan Cook,'Analysis: Is there a plan to force Palestinians into Sinai?,' Middle East Eye, 25 September 2014. The UN observer of Israel's behaviour in Gaza in 56 came to the same conclusion, so there is some historical depth to the idea, as well. And the article connects this to the latest war. Feel welcome to introduce this, anyone.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(2) Rotem Elizera, 'Three soldiers who fought in Gaza war commit suicide,' Ynet 1 October 2014.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(3) Mitch Ginsburg, 'IDF general: Lack of understanding led to unwanted Gaza war,' The Tims of Israel 30 September 2014Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(4) Mairav Zonszein, 'How Israel Silences Dissent,' New York Times 26 September 2014. (relevant for harassement and journalists section)Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The first one, there is no plan to "force" Palestinians into the Sinai. Sisi privately offered the Palestinians land in the Sinai to house Palestinian refugees until the Palestinians get a state. This was entirely an optional Egyptian proposal, which Israel admitted they were shocked to see, and Abbas rejected it.

The second one remains to be seen. PTSD is common in all wars.

The third I don't really see anything useful.

The fourth is an op-ed and it doesn't say anything about journalists, and it's generalizing individual actions are the result of Israel's government doing, which is obviously bogus.Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wounded Israeli civilians

The article says "According to Magen David Adom, 837 civilians were injured — 10 seriously, 26 moderately or lightly; 18 were hurt in traffic accidents when rocket-warning sirens sounded, 159 injured while running for bomb shelters, and 581 were treated for shock." 10 serious injuries plus 26 moderate or light injuries is 36 injuries. How badly were the other 801 (837 minus 36) civilians wounded, if not "seriously", "moderately", or "lightly"? Are the "10" and "26" figures perhaps very out-of-date? -sche (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the source for these numbers. One guess - perhaps those wounded less than lightly received some treatment and were released from the hospital, thus not being counted as injured anymore.

This source (google translate is useless because of a nasty popup) speaks about total of 2,271 wounded. It says that between 7th and 20th of July 438 people were treated in hospitals. It then classifies people by severity of injury and hospital, in total 69 serious, 121 moderate, 1439 light, 204 shock (which sums up to 1833). 1833+438 sums up to the mentioned 2271. I still don't know what to make of it, why are the first 438 people separate. WarKosign (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The source above mixes up soldiers and civilians. Here (translation) is a source that quotes MDA. They treated 842 civilians: 5 dead and 37 injured by rockets shards (1 critical, 10 serious, 6 moderate and 20 light). In addition, 33 injured by shards of glass and debris from rocket explosions, 18 of car accidents during alarms (including 1 seriously), 159 from falling or otherwise hurt while running for shelter and 581 treated for shock. Total of 5 dead + 37 by rockets + 33 by damage to buildings + 18 by car accidents + 159 by running + 581 by shock = 833. 9 more were injured in terror attacks (supposedly in reaction to the fighting): 1 stabbed in Maale Adumin, 7 injured in a tractor incident in Jerusalem (one died later from his wounds) and one person wounded by gunfire on the Scopus mountain. WarKosign (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest removing the classification by severity since we don't have it for all the injured, and instead classify them only by the source of injury - rocket or rocket debris, building debris caused by the rocket, traffic accidents, falling, terror attacks, shock. Classification by severity also changes over time, so different reports may be contradictory depending on the time they were made. WarKosign (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And here is the primary source with the same info (plus numbers of injured during regular, unrelated car accidents during the same period). WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for locating those sources! The suggestion of organizing injuries by cause rather than severity seems reasonable to me (especially because the severity data is so incomplete) and I have enacted it. -sche (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: You wrote "and 9 in violence in the West Bank", which is not correct - Maale Adumim (1 stabbed) is in the West Bank, but Mount Scopus and the tractor incident (Shmuel HaNavi Street) are in Jerusalem. I'd go with "and 9 in violence in Jerusalem area" or "in Jerusalem and Maale Adumim".

Another issue in the text you touched is "fell apart or expired". Ceasefires don't just fall apart, they are violated by one side or the other. Are there any claims about IDF violating any of the ceasefires during this conflict ? There are claims that Hamas violated many ceasefires, would saying that all the violations are claimed to be from Hamas side be factually correct or POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are Israeli claims of Hamas violating ceasefires. And here and here Hamas claims the opposite. How about "... ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other" ? Is it any better than the vague "fell apart" ? WarKosign (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"fell apart" is a shorter version of "ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other". Obviously ceasefires fall apart because something happens. I see no issues with that, if we are not assigning responsibility. For instance, see the timeline section for the August 1 ceasefire for different versions of who violated the ceasefire. Kingsindian (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just "were violated or expired" to be as short and a bit more exact ? WarKosign (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Were violated" begs the question of "by who?", and is IMO likely to prompt well-meaning (and possibly also less-well-meaning, more tendentious) people to repeatedly add "by Israel" or "by Hamas". That would then have to be qualified in a way like Kingsindian suggests ("by Israel according to Hamas or by Hamas according to Israel" / "with each side blaming the other") in order to be neutral, at which point we'd be devoting too much space to expressing the simple fact that the fighting didn't actually stop until the date that we report it stopped on, 26 August. The reasons I think a mention of previous ceasefires belongs in the lead at all are that Israel withdrew its ground forces after one of them, and they provide an introduction for the final, successful ceasefire. But the circumstances under which they fell apart are specific to each ceasefire, and contentious (and a magnet for POV edits), and hence best left in the article body, IMO. -sche (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: You wrote in two of your edit summaries that MDA is a partisan source and therefore its numbers should be removed from the infobox. Do you have a reliable source that claims that MDA is partisan, or is it just your personal feeling that this number is too high ? Who else but MDA knows how many people MDA treated ? You also wrote that using MDA's numbers is like using Hamas's number - which is exactly what we do, in the other column in the infobox there are numbers from "Hamas-controlled Gazan ministry of health", and most of the sources also use GHM's numbers as a basis. If you have a reliable source (that is, one that is not completely WP:FRINGE) that makes different claims regarding the numbers of wounded Israeli civilians we should include them as well.WarKosign (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To be more precise, the question whether or not to include the the claims Hamas made regarding number of killed and wounded IDF soliders is still being decided, but it seems to me the consensus is against including it as being obviously baseless. WarKosign (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:Yes, but there is one difference: it is mentioned the statistics are from Hamas. Your source does not. There, it follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. No, you're right. No reliable sources mentions that MDA is biased. However, then we need to follow WP:UCS (and WP:WIARM in general, it clearly says that common judgement plays a factor in editing articles). And, as far as I'm concerned, using an Israeli newspaper article which has statistics (unsubstantiated statistics at that; it does not cite MDA) without attributing its name, is a clear violation of WP:BIASED. Why is it for Gaza casualties, there is a higher standard for sources, but for Israeli casualty statistics, there is little standard? A mere newspaper article is apparently enough to prove that that 800+ civilians were injured. What were MDA's methods? How do we know they were reliable? How do we know they weren't completely fabricated? Casualty statistics require a higher degree of evidence. You can keep it, but at the very least, attribute it to the source rather than touting it as a statement of fact. Further, there should be a note attached to that statement described MDA's methods. 800+ casualties? Where did that number come from? Do you have direct evidence from MDA rather than a newspaper article? Also, how is MDA a reliable source? I don't have to prove that MDA is an unreliable source. No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's reliable. It is an Israeli source, and, again, we must exercise a certain degree of caution when using sources from a nation which is participating in the war. What did it define as an 'injury'? If, say, the relative of an Israeli soldier was diagnosed with depression as a result of losing a loved one, does that count as an injury? Then the definition of 'civilian injury' become absurdly broad. What does 'shock' mean? With that logic, every single person in Gaza was injured, because they all, I imagine they were all 'shocked' and scared that they might be killed. JDiala (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We must be a bit careful about injuries because unlike "dead" it is not binary. I agree that the methodology can be very different, so it is not easy to compare. JDiala mentions the "shock" category, but it can be extended. I do not really know what the way to fix this is, therefore I didn't comment before. Perhaps attribution is the way to go. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. NOTE: In Gaza, there is a problem.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: This is what is currently in the article's casualties section: "According to Magen David Adom, 837 civilians were treated for shock (581) or injuries (256): 37 were injured by rockets, 33 by debris from rocket explosions, 18 in traffic accidents which occurred when warning sirens sounded, 159 while running for or in bomb shelters, and 9 in violence in Jerusalem and Maale Adumim", with reference pointing directly to MDA report. Infobox should also be referencing MDA itself. The Gazan side of the infobox specifies the source of each number because they are so different. If they were relatively close, I would prefer to see just two numbers or ranges: dead and wounded, without specifying the sources, and only go into details in the appropriate section in the article body. WarKosign (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question "What is a shock victim" - Panic attack is more than being slightly afraid, they have symptoms that may appear similar to a heart attack or a stroke and usually need urgent medical attention. If you would count every scared person then you'd have to include most of Israel's population. I am not a medical professional, and even if you are one, deciding what constitutes an injury and what doesn't would be OR. We need sources that provide this information - hence the MDA report. WarKosign (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Yes, in the casualties section. Not the infobox, which was what I was editing. In the infobox, MDA is not attributed; it just says "469 soldiers and 837 civilians wounded". Ideally, you ought to also get the actual document from MDA rather than cite a newspaper article. Yes, absolutely we need sources. However, we need to know that this source is reliable. We also need to know how this source defines 'injured', and whether or not its definitions conform with the rest of the medical/legal definitions of what does or does not constitute an 'injury'. This is further exacerbated by the political nature of the conflict, and how MDA would have an incentive to define 'injury' broader than it actually is. I have no issue with MDA itself. You're free to include it. However, like every other organization, like the UN, the Gaza Health Ministry, the PCHR, and the ITIC, its name needs to be attributed alongside with its claim, because there is currently no consensus among reliable sources regarding the precise number of casualties. JDiala (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: Let's see what can be done to improve the situation, point by point:

• Jerusalem Post being quoted instead of MDA - I see no problem whatsoever with adding/switching citation.
• Wounded vs shock - I think the confusion came from translation. In Hebrew the numbers are usually reported as X נפגעים ("hurt"), out of them X dead, X severely injured, X moderately injured, X lightly injured and X נפגעי חרדה ("Hurt" by panic/shock). As I just checked with google translate, נגפעים is often translated as casualties or wounded, which may have led to the confusion. To avoid the confusion we can write "256 injured, 581 suffered shock"
• Specifying source - we could write something like "IDF: 66 soldiers dead and 469 wounded, MDA: 6 civilians dead, 256 injured, 581 suffered shock". It would look as if IDF and MDA are providing contradicting numbers, as is the case on the Gaza side of the casualties section, with different bodies providing wildly different estimations. Since there is just one set of numbers I prefer to omit the source. Perhaps we can use the citation so it shows clearly where the data is coming from - citing MDA directly is obvious (clicking on the citation link will show a box saying "MDA"), and for IDF we can also either cite it directly if available, or find a source that says in the headline "according to IDF ..."WarKosign (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Point by point response

• Maybe you don't have a problem, but WP:Reliable does. See in particular WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact...Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." What you cited falls into "analysis" rather than news reporting. That is the issue with it. It is only reliable if it's directly from MDA. JPosts unreliability (with regard to this in particular) is exacerbated by its right-wing Israeli bias.
• You have not responded to my statement. You are citing an Israeli organization. I will repeat what I previously said: Yes, absolutely we need sources for Israeli casualties. However, we need to know that this source[MDA] is reliable. We also need to know how this source defines 'injured', and whether or not its definitions conform with the rest of the medical/legal definitions of what does or does not constitute an 'injury'.
• None of the casualty sources other than, of course, the Israeli sources, are wildly contradicting. All respectable international organizations acknowledge that around 2000 Gazans died and 14-1600 of them were civilians. Only Israel, and some institutions within Israel, deny this. This is why caution needs to be taken when citing Israeli sources; its "analysis" of these issues tends to be contrarian and partisan. Since we don't know for fact that the precise number of Israeli casualties, we need to attribute any statements regarding that to organizations making those claims.
• In sum, there are two things you need to do: per WP:NEWSORG, as I mentioned, acknowledge that JPost is not a reliable source for casualty analysis, and thus MDA needs to be cited directly. And secondly, if you want to maintain the 800+ Israeli injuries statistics, attribute the claim to MDA and, ideally, have some sort of disclaimer concerning that most of the "injuries" are "shock", however MDA may define that. If you cannot do this, then I have grounds to remove it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL JDiala (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @JDiala: First point - I already agreed with you that there is no problem switching to MDA as the source. I will do it now. JPost quotes MDA directly and in fact provides exactly the same numbers, but sure, let's switch if this is what makes you happier.
• MDA is "officially recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as the national aid society of the state of Israel under the Geneva Conventions, and a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies". Do you have any more reliable source for the matter of injuries and casualties in Israel ? Is there any source, reliable or not, that disputes MDA's numbers ? You insistence on calling MDA partisan does not count.
• Nobody claimed that people suffering from shock were physically wounded. The way it was written is misleading, and I gave my theory on the source of the confusion. To make the comparison with the Palestinian wounded more obvious I suggested to split the number in the infobox into physically wounded and suffering from shock. If there is a number of Palestinians suffering shock, it should be included as well. WarKosign (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:No, I don't think you understood my point. Firstly, in my view, this is a WP:WIARM and WP:EXCEPTIONAL issue. Asserting that anxiety attacks (according to the source, that was what 500+ of the 842) amount to casualties in an armed conflict is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. In a war, the casualties generally refer to people who are physically injured or killed during the course of hostilities. This is WP:COMMON, unless you have a large number of sources (scholarly consensus) to back up your claim that anxiety attacks constitute "casualties". That, to me, sounds silly, and it's quite an extraordinary claim. Definitively calculating the number of civilian 'casualties' based on a single source (note, these were just the casualties MDA treated; that's a problem) is also a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And regarding the information presented as a statement of fact rather than attributing POV of a sources that an institution from a participating nation is absurd per WP:COMMON. Regarding the ICRC's recognition of MDA, it is not being denied that MDA is the national aid organization for Israel. The issue here is in text attribution and whether or not relying on a single, Israeli source to determine the number of Israeli casualties definitively, particularly when its definition of a 'casualty' is peculiar, is acceptable. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: People suffering from shock/panic/anxiety were removed from the infobox, leaving 256 physically harmed, driving this part of this argument moot (for the record, I agree that shocked people should not be counted as equivalent to physically injured, the question was only whether/how to mention them in the infobox). I would not at all object to adding more sources for the number of the injured, are there any ? Jpost,ynet and other Israeli newspapers quoted MDA, so I don't see much value in adding more of the same. I could not find a number from an international source. For a claim to be considered POV there should be another, conflicting claim - is there any ? WarKosign (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: No, that's still not good enough. Read the MDA source. Another "159 people were injured as a result of falling and trauma on the way to the shelters"; 18 who were injured in road traffic accidents which occurred when the sirens were heard. Is this a joke? They received a band-aid from tripping while going to the shelter, and that somehow constitutes a civilian casualty? No. Casualties, in the context of a war, almost always refer to physical injuries or deaths which occur during the course of combat, either from the enemy or friendly fire. This is simply a WP:COMMON issue. It is common sense. You don't need sources for this; you're the one making WP:EXCEPTIONAL, outlandish claims that falling while running to a shelter is a "casualty". JDiala (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: As a result of rocket fire from Gaza, people in Israel were injured physically. We do not know the exact degree of injury in each case, except it was serious enough to involve an ambulance or a trip to the hospital. There must be many cases of less severe injuries ("band-aid") that were not reported. Do you have evidence that out of 11,000 reported injuries in Gaza 10,000 are NOT band-aid ? MDA provided details on the sources of injuries, unlike a single and completely opaque number provided by Hamas's health ministry, and you are trying to use this transparency to discredit it. For instance, we know that Hamas shot and broke limbs of tens or hundreds of Fatah members, and that tens or hundeds of Hamas rockets fell on Gaza injuring people - why do you not demand to reduce the number of injured in Gaza ? WarKosign (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Yeah, no. This is becoming absurd now. If a modern military aerially bombards densely populated civilian neighborhoods with sophisticated attack jets for several weeks, it's reasonable to assume that most of the injuries resulting from that are more than 'band-aid'. That is more or less a common sense judgement. You can't say the same thing about "falling on the way to shelters". That is simply not a casualty. Receiving first aid for cuts and scrapes because of one's own clumsiness while going to the shelters isn't a casualty. That's nonsense. Regarding the Hamas rockets injuring Gazans, those are legitimate casualties, since in a war, injuries from friendly fire also count. If you look at the Operation Cast Lead, the friendly fire deaths are included for IDF soldiers. JDiala (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: I'm getting tired of your insistence to treat the wounded differently. Your common sense seems very biased - you seem to think that all the injuries in Israel are 'band-aid' while in Gaza "most of the injuries" are serious. Lacking better data, I have to assume that the distribution of severity of injuries is similar, even though in Gaza residents received prior warnings by leaflets, phone calls, text messages, "roof knocking" and Israeli residents sometimes had less than 15 seconds to reach shelter. WarKosign (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be clear on this issue. The casualties section in the infobox is reserved for those suffering physical harm ONLY. Not everybody who got an anxiety attack due to a bomb falling near them. The section is even called casualties and the definition of civilian casualties (which is the case here) on Wikipedia that it is a military term describing civilians killed, injured, or imprisoned by military action. Any information about mental trauma, short-term or otherwise, can be talked about in the main body of the article within a dedicated paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

5 dead and 37 injured by rockets shards (1 critical, 10 serious, 6 moderate and 20 light). In addition, 33 injured by shards of glass and debris from rocket explosions, 18 of car accidents during alarms (including 1 seriously), 159 from falling or otherwise hurt while running for shelter

I won't push this, but mrely note for the record.by military action means 'wounded as a consequence of military action'. Spraining one's ankle, for example, while running to a shelter when a siren warns of a possible strike in your area is not strictly classifiable as a 'war wound', which Israeli statistics was suffered by 70 (33+37), not 246 (from memory). My father coolly help dismantle a huge German bomb in Tripoli during the war, and then shat himself an hour later while sitting down to tell his fellow soldiers of the incident. I don't think he blamed the Germans for some loose bowel syndrome, though there is a connection.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala and WarKosign: When a discussion goes on this long, it is fair to assume that it is not really about content. You are not forced to argue forever. Clearly you cannot agree. Open an RfC or pursue other avenues here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit about blockade

This edit is not "clarifying", it is selectively quoting one particular clause of one particular report. See the last paragraph of the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip. The naval blockade is only one part of the blockade, and only one report declared that legal. It is totally undue to put one data point in the article like this. This issue of the blockade has been discussed many times on the talk page before. This statement should be removed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Naval/air blockade is indeed a blockade. There is no blockade on land, there are borders with Israel and Egypt and both manage their own borders however they see fit. Doesn't your country control its borders ? Do you consider it a blockade of the neighbors ?

Israel obviously considers the blockade legal (or at least necessary). One important report by the UN declared that it is legal. Many ("overwhelming majority") NGOs disputed this opinion. Why represent only one point of view and not both ? WarKosign (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That Israeli considers the blockade necessary is already mentioned: there is no suppression of one point of view. This particular tidbit is simply taking one data point out of the whole saga of the legality of the blockade. It is not just NGOs which disputed this opinion, it is a five member UN panel of international law experets who did this. And there is the Goldstone report separately and the Red Cross and so on. Read the last paragraph of the other article I quoted. Adding this tidbit by itself is simply false balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: @WarKosign: I concur with KingsIndian. The Palmer report is a WP:DUE issue. There is almost unanimous international consensus regarding the illegality of the blockade. Moreover, the statement "[a] United Nations commission ruled that the blockade was "both legal and appropriate" misrepresents the report. It only refers to the naval blockade; not the blockade as a whole, and the report itself repeatedly emphasizes the humanitarian issue in Gaza. The section on the blockade now sounds as though there's some sort of international debate as to whether or not the blockade is legal and/or appropriate, when in reality, there simply is not. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the report indeed only meant the naval part of the blockade. Is there any objection to writing 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".' ? Another option is to keep the question of legality of the blockade out of this article and leave the discussion where it belongs, that is in the article dealing with it. WarKosign (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This is not 'for the sake of argument'. The report itself is available online [13]. And yes, you can do that for now(In fact,that's what I'll do), but there's still the WP:DUE issue. Regarding mentioning the legality of the blockade, that needs to stay. That's one of the reasons we have the 'background' section: so readers can understand the broader context of the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the blockade itself is highly relevant. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: Existence of the blockade is highly relevant, legality of it is less so. If the whole international community was supporting the blockade, would it make Hamas any less inclined to look for ways to break it and smuggle rockets or materials to build rockets?

The report says that the naval blockade was legal. It also says that it considered it separately from the land crossing policies that were in place before the naval blockade. It does not specifically say that there is any other kind of blockade that is illegal. "For the sake of argument" meant - let's not argue (now) if the report saying that the naval blockade is legal should or should not be understood as saying that land and air movement restrictions are legal or illegal. WarKosign (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Fine, I can agree with that. You can remove all references to its legality. Though that would also mean removing Israel's legal argument ("Israel maintains that the blockade is legal") JDiala (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what? No, the legality of the blockade should not be removed. This is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. What is the rationale for removing it? The UN specifically quoted the legality of the blockade here and the EU has made statements about it too, among many others. The discussion here is not whether the legality should be included or not. If you wish to open a discussion on that, use a separate section, so that people are not confused. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I also prefer to have a few sentences discussing legality of the blockade, including one - such as the one I wrote above - for Palmer report. WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the legality in more detail, I suggest copying the entire last paragraph of the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm not opposed to removing it, WarKosign brought it up, but the rationale would be the fact that that the background is meant to be just that: a background, or a general overview of the situation in Gaza and Israel prior to the launch of the operation. Thus it could be argued that the inclusion of the various legal issues would be a more specialized and specific area of interest best suited for the actual article on the blockade. Regardless, if the legality is to be discussed, then it must follow WP:DUE and, if the Palmer report is to be included, it must be noted that it only refers to the naval blockade. A whole paragraph, like the one you mentioned, would be too much though. JDiala (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I see three options:

1. Adding 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".'
2. Removing legality discussion completely
3. Copy/transclude the whole legality paragraph from the lead of the blockade article, which also mentions the Palmer report.

I prefer #1 but any other option is also acceptable with me. Looks like Kingsindian opposes #2. Opinions ? Do we need an RfC on this ?WarKosign (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a fourth option: keep things as they are, which I support. I oppose #1 and #2. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, this option exists. I however object to it because of WP:NPOV. Anyone objecting to #3 ?WarKosign (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence says "the overwhelming consensus is...", which is clearly correct, as this discussion and elsewhere (this has been discussed multiple times) has shown. As for #3, it looks to me like JDiala is opposing it, though he can clarify. I only support #3 as a last resort. I prefer #4. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Palmer is DUE enough to be about third of the legality paragraph in the blockade article and mentioning it here would result in the same ratio (1 line out of 3-4), while inserting the whole legality paragraph would take 11-12 lines. WarKosign (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)