Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

ITIC - (analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)

@WarKosign, pls paid attention that ITIC doesn't approve the number of "2,157 killed". As I see, it's their database for analysis only :

• "The number of names of those killed, examined by the ITIC to date, based on the Palestinian Health Ministry’s lists, is around 900, i.e., about 42% of the number of Palestinians killed (a total of 2,157, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry issued on September 14, 2014). From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)..." [1]

This is the reason why I've added the "(analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)". --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: I based on "From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)" to say that they don't base their report (only) on GHM. Now I understand what your disclaimer meant - you were referring only to the total number, not to all the numbers by ITIC. They do say, however "After these adjustments, the total number of fatalities examined by the ITIC to date is 1,017, i.e., approximately 47% of the total number of fatalities." - I think we can CALC that ITIC believes total number of fatalities to be 2164 and update the two mentions of it accordingly. “WarKosign” 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'd wait till they finish the work and will publish its results with their CALC numbers. What'd be added at the moment is that they work with somebody's list(s) and count the percentage, not absolute numbers. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Currently their partial report is in the article with the disclaimer that it's not final and the numbers are extrapolated. Unless we remove it completely, better at least use the correct total number of casualties that they provide. “WarKosign” 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the statistics here should be those of tjhe IDF and those of OCHA/UNWRA. The multiplication of Palestinian official or semi-official sources adds nothing. Nor does ITIC help, since it an (un)educated or (dis)interested guess, and a private body. These OCHA/IDF figures 73 vs 55 show the range. Within a few months, when neutral sources publish their results, the picture will be clearer. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: UNRWA with its HAMAS' personnel and "Rockets-inside" - as NPOV source? Are you serious? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please think before you write my way. No source is NPOV. NPOV is what emerges by presenting all relevant POVs and analyses per WP:Due. And it would help improve your approach here if you grasp the fact that you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views, both Israel and Hamas are represented not by rhetorical caricature, but neutrally. The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after such your comparison as "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" I only have to return your "Please think before you write", "you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable sources. “WarKosign” 06:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in the "daughter" topic about what is so similar to attempt to equate Israel with Nazis : :

if "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" would be true

... then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Gaza problem", because Arabs would not be longer in Gaza. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC, who admits to ignoring most of the data on casualties while adding 100 non-existant militants to further bias its "reports" is a horrific source. We should not even contemplate using such propagandic arms of the Israeli military. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the data comes from the Hamas health ministry, which has been caught double- or even triple-counting the same names with slightly different spelling dozens of times. It is the international news media which should be ashamed for failing to conduct the kind of detailed, independent studies the ITIC has. BTW, while you have a history of arbitrarily reverting anyone who you feel "looks like a paid editor", it is your edits as a likely sockpuppet and single-purpose POV-pusher that arouses suspicion from my perspective.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: according to No personal attacks, "we should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. We should comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Mhhossein (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: - again, it's you opinion only. See from "ITIC at Google Scholar" subtopic above:

• "++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il"

It's your own wp:OR till you bring serious RS with ITIC's critics, as well as your repeatable reverts in List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict seem as wp:WAR. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute ITIC's ability to spread its propaganda, I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates. No honest third party could see value in a source which adds 100 non-existant militants while ignoring most of the data on civilian deaths to get an ideological answer to the ratio of resistant:civilian kills. Israeli organizations often screen data to give ideological answers, just ask Israel's Population and Immigration Authority what's the most popular name in Israel. To "Thetimesareachanging", if thousands of bombs were dropped on my home town I'm sure the victims would share names; I know a few people with identical names. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Perhaps you should read ITIC's methodological notes before you announce that they add "100 non-existant militants". Hamas has an official policy of concealing names of dead militants, and ITIC adds names of known dead militants that Gaza Health Ministry "forgot" to mention. The names are in the lists ITIC publishes, as far as I know ITIC is the only organization that is transparent enough to provide complete list with names, classifications and often pictures of the casualties. GHM is openly a propaganda tool of Hamas, yet we give it due place in the article, so whatever you opinion of ITIC is - no reason not to have it too.

Name duplications: names of the Palestinians usually consists of two first names, father name and a last name - total of 4 names. It is not impossible to have duplications, but the chance of having dozens of double of triple accidental duplications in a list of 2200 names is extremely low. You can see for yourself if you bother reading any of the ITIC reports before criticizing them.“WarKosign” 18:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care how many anti-Palestine hate-blogs you link to. I did read the ITIC methodology; it's brutally clear that it is a terrible resource; they add non-existant militants and they classify all government workers as terrorists. It is their job to spin the slaughter, it's their sole reason to exist. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:: "I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates." - IMHO, so insistent repetition of the charges is another violation of the rules (wp:GF as min). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a clear conflict of interest for members of the organizations spoken of in this article to edit the article. I realize you will not enjoy this fact and will continue to attack me for reminding editors of this fact. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Assuming good faith is not a policy but a recommendation. Not assuming good faith by itself is not a violation, but is likely to lead to uncivil behavior such as personal attacks or edit warring, which are violations of a policies.

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Thank you for reminding us of Conflict of Interests, it is an important policy to keep in mind. Let me remind you that attacking the character of your opponent instead of responding to their argument is not a good way to resolve disputes, in fact it is only one notch better than name calling. “WarKosign” 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never attacked any editor's character nor do I have opponents. ITIC openly ignores data, makes up numbers, and defines all government workers as terrorists. There is no way such an organization should have their reports included within an encylopedia alongside serious organizations' reports. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a paid editor as a part of an argument is an attack on their character. If you have real grounds for concerns, you should take them with administrators. Try to understand that not everybody believes that Hamas is holier than the pope, and not everybody believes that Israel and IDF are the spawn of Satan, even without being paid. You repeated for at least three time that ITIC ignores data and makes data up, without providing any facts. Can you or any source point to any name that ITIC made up or ignored? Repeating this statement doesn't make it any truer - ITIC is an NGO, like many others quoted on this page, so we have to consider it as reliable as Al Mezan or PCHR who also clearly have an agenda. “WarKosign” 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care if you believe HAMAS is holier than the pope, that has nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss; that ITIC is a joke. I've told you multiple times the ITIC adds no name militants to it's reports, if you read the report you would know this, they added 25 no-name "terrorists" four times for a total of 100 non-existant people. ITIC ignores half of those slaughtered; they know as everyone else does the majority of those slain in this unrecognized other half are civilians, you would know this if you read the report. ITIC counts all government employees as "terrorists", that makes their counting and reporting useless, you would know this if you read the report. Though seeing how you keep getting off topic and ignoring all my posts and sending me threats to revert my edits while you continuously undo my work, I think you know you are wrong but are just trying to hold out as long as possible, where is the report button? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating your assertion for at least the fourth time without providing any proof or source. For the last time, are you able to give a reliable source disputing names on ITIC's lists ? As long as you can't, go ahead and believe anything you want but don't act here based on your believes alone. ITIC is a research organization and you probably are not. If you do represent a research organization on the subject your editing here would constitute a conflict of interests as you surely know.“WarKosign” 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

[2] Everything I say is in the source. You are clearly pretending to not understand while you continue to attack my edits, I don't see speaking to you as anymore useful as speaking to a brick wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:I'm sorry, I don't see "we added 100 non-existant people" in the report. Could you be so kind to give me the quote you are referring to in this document ? Maybe you meant restoring names of dead militants that are "accidentally" missing from Hamas's health ministry list ? Feel free to distrust any single source, this is why we have several contradicting sources and don't have to trust either one exclusively. Either GHM is wrong or ITIC is wrong, we will find the truth in a few months. In previous conflicts eventually Hamas released the names of all the dead militants and the final list was very close to the one released by the IDF.

BTW, do you need me to help you file a complaint against me ? Consider reading this first.“WarKosign” 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you would file a report on your poor behaviour, namely your constant reversions, your inability to listen to others, and your constant denial of what is plainly stated in sources, that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I do not think my actions violate any policy or I wouldn't be performing them. I do read your claims carefully and so far your argument consisted of very few facts and a lot of emotions, this did not convince me. Not all the editors here will agree with you, I believe that even editors inclined to prefer the Hamas point of view will find your opinions extreme. Each of us is not alone here, editors either find a way to co-exist with editors they disagree with or they find themselves not being editors anymore. Please read up on edit warring and on when reverting is acceptable. “WarKosign” 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You say you want to find yourself not being an editor anyone, how does this happen? Can you please make it happen? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:

• The New York Times
• The Wall Street Journal
• CNN
• New York Post
• Gannett
• Haaretz
• USA Today

There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Harassment

TheTimesAreAChanging I’m putting you on notice. You have three times made automatic reverts of the rare edits I make, in a way that violates WP:AGF, are incoherent in policy terms and override talk page discussion. This suggests you are targeting my editing to a purpose, i.e.dislike or for harassment. Do this once more, without exercising the courtesy of addressing a perceived problem on the talk page, and you will be reported.

(1) first automatic revert with spurious edit summary:’Random blog by assistant professor tentatively recounting a "very convoluted" Arab media report that also mentions Hamas' repeated public statements rocket fire would continue until the end of the blockade is undue.’ This turned out, per the talk page, to be an authoritatively sourced statement, and was restored by another editor.

(2) second automatic revert with meaningless edit summary:’ Nishidani, is it that hard to write a logically coherent sentence? (Escalation refers to massive upsurge in rocket attacks until Israel met Hamas' demands.’. 'Premature escalation' is a nonsense expression in English.

(3) third automatic revert, with spurious edit summary, generic accusation and a non-policy based ‘rationale. ‘ RV POV-push with bad formatting.’ It also contradicts the verdict of the relevant talk page section where two editors agreed to my proposal and only you, (aside from the now suspended editor MarciulionisHOF, whose remarks were incoherent in policy terms, disagreed. Given it is now effectively 3 against 1, the edit I made, duly discussed, has legitimate warrant to be reincluded.

Disagreements about formatting are not reasons for reverting. Editors normatively fix bad formatting. No evidence is given for the assertion that an edit I proposed on the talk page is POV-pushing. It was closer to the source, etc. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It was restored by Dr. R.R. Pickles, a single-purpose POV pusher and serial editor warrior, with no edit summary. It is still an additional, excessive, wildly undue incident from a dubious source, but I decided to walk away--even though similar edits by myself had been repeatedly reverted on vague grounds. (I still don't know why Omri Ceren is less reliable than your blog.) In general, I find the sheer number of progressive blogs you pass off as "scholarship" deeply disturbing. 2. That scarcely even counts as a revert. I fixed a completely incoherent collection of words you tried to pass off as a sentence: "According to the allegation, dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification', "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds", Hamas planned to..." The phrase "premature escalation" was never used, and you fabricated the Meshaal quote. 3. Your edit was much farther away from the source, which is why you added another source to supplement it. Contrary to your "consensus", JDiala proposed and implemented a change to the problematic sentence, which I accepted before you went nuclear with lengthy and undue regurgitation of propaganda. Finally, only one of those edits was a full revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

'dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification' (Nishidani)

'You made up the Meshaal quote.'TheTimesAreAChanging)

Adam Cirilsky,' Did Israel Avert a Hamas Massacre?,' Vanity Fair, October 21, 2014

The alleged plan of attack (as pieced together by defense and security professionals through electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds during the war) was chilling: a surprise assault in which scores of heavily armed Hamas insurgents were supposedly set to emerge from more than a dozen cross-border tunnels and proceed to kill as many Israelis as possible. Khalid Mishal, the leader of Hamas, also agreed to speak to Vanity Fair, to give his perspective. He insists that such a nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification and that employing the tunnels to kill Israeli citizens was never Hamas’s intention.

You imply you had read the source, and rightly so, justified its inclusion. Therefore, either you are lying to a purpose in asserting I made up a statement directly quoted from that self-same source, or you didn't read the very paper you selectively quoted from. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the quality of your editing, your contrafactual refusal to accept I edit in good faith, and your attribution to me of a practice of inventing quotes (WP:OR), an extremely serious claim in wikipedia and the kind of behaviour that justifiably earns almost automatic suspensionif proven, in what is a comprehensive WP:AGF violation. You have blatantly falsified my record, and that is the fourth instance of your hostility.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This user has a clear agenda. His inexplicable removal of a sourced claim, which was by no means undue and provided good balance to the otherwise somewhat pro-Israel immediate events section, because it was somehow "POV-pushing"[no explanation given as to how] and "bad formatting" is nonsense. I'd revert it right now, though I've already crossed the 1RR limit. JDiala (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you try to pass off VF's summary as a direct quote? Given the number of things I read every day, you'll forgive me for not remembering that exact line and using control+find to check every quote in the article when I suspected there was something fishy to your edit besides its incomprehensibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not what this discussion is about, but the source should be either explicitly quoted or paraphrased. This use of the source borders on WP:PLAGIARISM.“WarKosign” 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole text as I saw it entered was full of "" snippets. I don't use "", as anyone familiar with my editing knows. I usually change that to ' ' when I quote a source. TTAAC mightn't know that, but in his original edit summary he did not mention this idea he brings up now, that I was attributing the source words to Meshaal. That would have been a legitimate query had he mentioned it, or, better still, had he simply checked the text and fixed it as what it is, Cirilsky's paraphrase of Meshaal's reaction to the 'nightmare scenario' sketched out. Editors are obliged to check, query, and fix. To erase stuff like that is just edit-warring to a purpose.

What caught my eye when I made my rush edit (well past midnight my time, as the sleepy skewed syntax suggests) was the duplicity of this:

'According to "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery" etc.

Here the series of terms are governed by 'according to', which means that the IDF account is a fact. Then the text added that it was 'according to the six Israeli intelligence officials'. The whole sentence should have read 'According to six Israeli intelligence officials'who say they based their account on intercepts, interrogations and informants' etc...

(It can't be based on 'satellite imagery'. Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future, and frankly using it in this context undermines the claim)

That is the sort of devious textual gamesmanship I was endeavouring to edit, by copying and pasting in what VF said of Meshaal's reply, which, had I had my wits about me instead of rushing off an edit before bedtime, would have properly read:

'the allegation, a nightmare scenario dismissed by Khaled as a post hoc justification.'

The fact remains that TTAAC consistently targets my edits with ridiculous edit summaries for his reverts, and the post-facto justifications are just that.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

An edit summary is just that, a summary. The talk page is for detailed discussion. If you want to defend your use of the Haaretz source I reverted, you should open a new section and state your rationale and actually acquire the consensus you claimed to have. Then, I could explain that we already have at least one Meshaal denial that Hamas targets civilians (see "rocket attacks" section of "Hamas violations") and don't need another, ect. JDiala's involvement here is grotesque hypocrisy from an editor who routinely deletes much larger amounts of material with edit summaries like "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE" and who violated 1RR as recently as 18 hours ago, with no sanctions (evidently the admin are harder on perceived pro-Israel editors). As is citing "everyone else is probably a paid editor" Dr. R.R. Pickles as a neutral arbiter while condemning my alleged failure to AGF.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated, you have been put on notice for a dubious pattern of abuseive reverting.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently satellites can be used for detection of tunnels: "American satellites – equipped with special high resolution infrared detection technology – have preliminary findings of around 60 tunnels on the Israel-Gaza border". Information they provide may be used to determine the likely intended use of a tunnel. “WarKosign” 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote:'Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future'. Numerous tunnels were known, presumably also by satellite imagery detection, to have existed before the war. No satellite imagery can determine what a tunnel is used for. No satellite can detect the specific intention of tunnel builders (-this one's to kill Israeli civilians'!) It undermines the briefing's seriousness (well, it made me laugh) and that's why I suggested it was stupid to retain it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:LOL! My (accidental) violation of 1RR was pro-Israel; I was reverting Pickles' borderline-vandalism which was anti-Israel. Regarding the "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE POV claims...removed" edit I made, the edit summary has a character limit. I will explain that edit now: the sources used for the claims I removed ("The high success rate (95%) in blocking such plots is due to the very close cooperation between the security forces of both sides") and ("Hamas has put considerable effort into kidnapping attempts through its large network"), [3][4] [5] were unreliable. The first and third of those three sources can be dismissed out of hand per WP:NEWSORG. Furthermore, the third one is an editorial, and the first one refers to Hamas as a "terrorist" group, so its impartiality and biasedness is quite clear(biased claims are allowed, but they must be attributed and be balanced and not undue). The second one from The Washington Post doesn't say anything about whether or not Hamas "put effort into the kidnapping attempts throughout its large network"; it says that is what Israel says. Remember, biased, controversial, or disputed claims must be attributed and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence JDiala (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Amos Harel writing for Foreign Policy is perfectly good RS. That the PNA polices its own on behalf of Israel and the United States, who pay them, is well known, as is the fact that most of the success rate is due to information given Shin Bet by the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias in the article

As we all know this article has a very heavy anti-Palestinian bias so I thought I would list some of the problems I see so we can go about improving this article.

1. )No mention of the Israeli occupation of Gaza in the lead
2. )No mention that the two who murdered the Israelis in Palestine were rogues
3. )No mention of HAMAS' goals in the lead despite entertaining Israel's reasoning for its attacks
4. )No mention of Israel targeting homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, factories, the power and sewage treatment plants, politicians, ambulances, journalists, and children
5. )We state that HAMAS refused to "recognize Israel's right to exist, and renounce violence", yet we don't state that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist or to renouce violence
6. )We never state that Israel is legally responsible to ensuring the protection of all Gazans
7. )We never state how most Gazans are refugees
8. )We state that HAMAS captured an Israeli soldier, yet no mention of the thousands of Palestinians captured by Israel
9. )We don't state how Israel often stalled peace talks by stating they could not negotiate with Palestine as HAMAS and Fatah were split
10. )We don't state that Israel would not allow Abbas to enter Gaza when HAMAS and Fatah were to rejoin
11. )We state Operation Pillar of Defense began with Israel killing a Palestinian in response to 100 rockets fired from Gaza but we don't state how Israel had killed a handful of Palestinian children as the reason for the rockets
12. )We don't mention many details on Israel's attacks on the West Bank, Israeli troops stealing money, flags, shooting civilians, nighttime raids, curfews, kidnapping politicians, are all missing
13. )Israeli attacks are always written as "in response" while the resistant's attacks are not
14. )Several sentences on militants entering Israel is followed by the terse "the Israeli military entered Shuja'iyya...resulting in heavy fighting", no mention of the atrocities commited there.
15. )Saleh al-Arouri's comments are reported twice in extreme length even despite it being obvious he was clueless as he believed the three were actually kidnapped and being held for a trade.
16. )We have unnamed "human rights groups" attacking the GHM's body count as inflated
17. )We talk about Israel giving warnings before it bombs peoples properties but we don't mention how HAMAS was sending warnings to Israeli civilians before rocket launches
18. )We have an undue weight tag next to the two lines on IDF vandalism of Palestinian homes
19. )Israel's use of Palestinians as human shields is very empty, were are the cases of Israeli troops raiding homes, placing civilians at the windows as the IDF shots out of them, or how the IDF murdered anyone who could speak Hebrew
20. )We never mention that Palestinians have the right under international law to use violence against their occupiers
21. )We have paragraphs on Israel's allegations that HAMAS intimidated journalists but we have nothing on Israel's intimidation, censorship, and murder of journalists
22. )We use notoriously ideological sources like MEMRI, ITIC, Washington Beacon, Arutz Sheva

I'm sure there are more problems but these are just a few I found which make it seem as though this article is property of the IDF. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of your comment is a fantasy, but on two specific points: 1) Saleh al-Arouri is the senior Hamas official who directs their West Bank operations, was reported responsible for the kidnappings prior to claiming responsibility, and directed the foiled Hamas coup plot. The kidnappers stupidly panicked and killed the Israeli teenagers after finding they could not restrain all three, one of whom had served in the IDF. The material is mentioned twice because of the "Operation Timeline" section not working until recently, and that section merely repeating information from a separate article regardless of if it is all needed. 2) The myth that Israel hit the power plant, which then miraculously recovered after predictions it would take a year to rebuild, is indeed covered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we quickly mention how Israel bombed the plant but we don't mention that Israel was targeting infrastructure in violation of international law which is what I was getting at. If you could add a bit on that or help solve some of the other 21 standing problems that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please no one take this seriously. 75% of the things he complains about are already in the article. The other 25% is just POV nonsense.Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are again duly noted and disregarded. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll humour you:

1. To fit with the policy, it was agreed to keep the lead free of disputable claims. The article on Gaza Strip says it has not been under occupation since 1994. If you mean the blockade - it is mentioned early in the background.
2. The fact they were rogues is a disputable claim, and the article includes denial by Meshal as well as admission by Saleh al-Arouri.
3. Do you mean the goal to obliterate Israel ? Their list of demands was mentioned in the article, it is not there anymore. Perhaps it should be restored.
4. Read #Alleged violations by Israel
5. Do you have a source for the claim that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist?
6. Do you have a source for this responsibility ?
7. "A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons or because they are fleeing a war". 97% of Gaza residents are under age of 65 which means they were born after 1948, so they are not refugees by definition.
8. The infobox says that Israel arrested 250 people, 159 of them identified as militants. Do you have a source for a bigger number ?
9. Source?
10. Source? Is it relevant ? Can Israel prevent Abbas from crossing the border to Jordan and then from Egypt into Gaza ?
11. I assume you mean Operation Protective Edge. The Khan Yunnis incident is mentioned: "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas operatives" and even that is not perfectly correct since there are sources indicated that the militants blew themselves up while examining explosives possibly damaged by strike.
12. I assume you mean Operation Brother's keeper. In my opinion it should have a separate article.
13. Do you have a source describing "Israel's agression" which is not in response to an action of the militants ?
14. Any sources for these "atrocities" ? Check #Alleged violations by Israel.
15. Any source on Saleh al-Arouri being clueless ? He is the handler of the Hamas network in Judea and Samaria, if he is clueless who isn't ?
16. Check the source.
17. You're right, Hamas text message harassment of people in Israel is missing.
18. I agree it is undue. A single case without reliable sources. Someone thinks it is important, some editor thought otherwise and added the tag so it can be discussed. This is a good way to handle disputes without damaging the article. Read up on WP:UNDUE
19. Source ?
20. Source ?
21. #Attacks on journalists
22. We use GHM, B'tselem, HRW, Maannews, UNWRA, PCHR. We use sources from both sides to generate a balanced view.

Next time, read the article and check your facts before you write. “WarKosign” 06:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on failing to discuss a single point presented, your personal attack is duly noted, I'll keep it with the others. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: I did in fact respond to every single of your 22 points, even the silliest ones. I see that you can't be bothered to provide sources, only empty and often factually incorrect accusations. I never referred to your personality or even editing style, so there is no person attack whatsoever. Your repeated implied threats of reporting can be seen as harassment. “WarKosign” 07:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign may prefer to be reasonable and polite, but I say it's time to stop feeding the troll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What made me laugh was @Dr. R.R. Pickles: talking about how Hamas was "sending warnings to Israeli citizens" before rocket launches. Hamas rockets are unguided and inaccurate, which makes them illegal under international law. So even if Hamas was "warning" Israeli citizens and even if Hamas wasn't aiming for Israeli citizens (which they can't do anyway), it's a completely pointless warning. Nonetheless, the "warnings" were propaganda and meant to terrorize and spread paranoia among Israeli citizens. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

R. R. Pickles does have a point - this psychological warfare is not represented anywhere in the article. I'm not sure where it should be added, though - timeline ? military technology ? Perhaps in the section dealing with Israel warning Gaza citizens via text messages before imminent bombing and Hamas claiming that it was a form of psychological warfare ?“WarKosign” 16:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can continue to throw insults and add tags on everything you don't like, this is what I expected as an article can not get this terrible by chance. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: What is "Judea and Samaria"? No such region exists. It is the West Bank. The fact that you would refer to it with that term points out how biased you are. JDiala (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

West Bank of what, exactly? The term only makes sense if the territory is still under Jordanian occupation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes enough sense for the US[6], Canada[7], the UK[8], just about every member country in the UN general assembly[9], the UN itself[10], the ICJ[11], the EU[12], human rights organizations [13][14][15], the ICRC[16], NGOs[17][18]and even this site. Evidently, it makes sense to the entire world, other than highly partisan, ardent nationalist-Zionist apartheid-supporters like yourself and Mr. Kosign. JDiala (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala:Sure it exists; I was there several times. Judea and Samaria Area is "the historical biblical names for the territory now generally referred to as the West Bank". In this case I just copy-pasted it with Saleh al-Arouri's description from the first result on google when looking him up. You can't know if I support Jewish settlement in the West Bank or not (which is what I assume you imply using the false comparison to apartheid).

BTW thanks for reverting R. R. Pickles's nonsense, note you've accidentally violated 1RR there. A few (better selected) quotes from Ban Ki-moon's speech do belong in the reactions article. “WarKosign” 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is no different than people calling the region of Israel + Palestinian territories as Palestine or Land of Israel. The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria before it was called the West Bank. It's just as legitimate. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong evidence

@Nishidani: Sharon wrote "in possession of evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead". In your version it became "strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed". The evidence became strong which is a legal term not applicable here, and suddenly it is not "indicating" but concluding. I tried to add 'hinting' but you reverted it without discussing. I am ok with "suggesting" "pointing" or such. Goldberg detailed what the evidence was and wrote "There was no doubt" but it contradicts Sharon who wrote "indicated". A bullet hole and some DNA (even if it's blood) leaves plenty of hope that a person is still alive. They were "acting on the assumption that they’re alive", which is natural in any search and rescue operation - what's the point in quoting it ? “WarKosign” 22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You cited WP:Plagiarism earlier. I had that in mind in changing 'evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead' to 'strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed.'. This is simple paraphrase. You are correct that my paraphrase requires 'suggesting' (not 'indicating' which would close the plagiarism gap, so also teens = three). So write:-

::'strong evidence in its possession suggesting that the three had been killed.'

Ya know, you don't have to clear with me correction of my edits if they need tweaking. It's quite within your rights to tweak anything if there is some problem in an earlier representation of a source.

As to Goldberg vs Sharon (there are many uses of extensive textual citations of rather trivial matter in the text, and you should not make an exception here). 'Indicate' means 'points out'. Again, as up above, I don't expect sources to agree with one another. Each has a way of saying things. In articles where heavy POV interests are at stake, readers should be given in notes a range of views and quotes, and settle their own minds. Goldberg is right of course: the police lied through their teeth in telling Gil-Ad Shaer's mother that the spent cartridges found 'outside the car' proved the thugs had shot out the windows. The shots were registered at 22:25 near Alon Shvut, going west. The last signal from the cellphone came an hour later, when the car was burnt near Beit Einun, where the cartridges were found, some outside the car. The incongruency was patent, and the story to Mrs Shaer and the other families cruel. There was nothing 'natural' about the operation, which was a political choice dictated, perhaps yes, by concern to find the bodies, but also, as is always the case in significant political decisions, many other tactical considerations. In any case, we should ensure that readers have a variety of perspectives, not just a flattened out compatibility narrative.Nishidani (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I added "hinted" and you reverted it. "Suggesting" is ok. What about "strong evidence" ? This is a legal term that is not applicable here. “WarKosign” 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A 'hint' is, in English, something 'thin'. 'Strong evidence' or 'evidence strongly suggests' cannot go with 'hint' as a 'nudge' can't be confused with a 'push'. It creates stylisticf dissonance. I certainly should have replaced it with 'suggested'. My apologies.

As to 'strong evidence' being a legal term, I think that is a cavil. A large number of terms in this and numerous other articles bear both a common meaning and, in legal contexts, a technical meaning: 'allege,' 'defense', 'complaint', 'appeal,' 'examination'. I recall writing somewhere a 'close examination,' in the sense of careful reading. Now all one has to do to make the point you make is link close examination to yield an implication that is not intended, i.e., turn a literary practice into a legal method.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unity government salaries

@Nishidani: You wrote "Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials". Your source says "Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza" (without direct connection to threat/opportunity). There are other sources saying that "Barely a week after the national unity government was sworn in, the reconciliation efforts appear to be teetering on the brink over who should pay the salaries of 50,000 Hamas-appointed civil servants in Gaza." and "The salary crisis concerns 50,000 employees, 10,000 of whom receive their salaries from the PA, while the remaining 40,000 get paid by Hamas a total of $25 million per month." Surely if it was Israel blocking the money they wouldn't forget to mention it. “WarKosign” 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Abbas who blocked the payments: In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists. He said Hamas should keep paying their salaries "until we agree" on a solution. He also criticized the protests by Hamas loyalists over the salary issue, saying it was a "bad sign."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me address WarKosign, who understands that these issues are technical, and require technical details, not slabs of 'stuff'.

in para 4 'Netanyahu, who never had any intention of making the necessary concessions, as his own statements would later reveal,' ('Netanyahu: Gaza Conflict Proves Israel Can't Relinquish Control of West Bank,' The Times of Israel 11 July 2014:'“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan” — a reference to the Jordan Valley and the West Bank.')

in para 5, immediately after this: Instead of choosing a different path, 'Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza, sending a clear message that Israel would not treat Gaza any different under the rule of moderate technocrats from the Palestinian Authority.'

It's not our brief to question RS, except when they conflict. Esp. one cannot challenge a statement in one RS by, as you do, noting that statement is not mentioned in another source (fallacy of argumentum ex silentio). Still, since you ask, the allusion is to the technical fact that Ramallah transfers funds to Gaza

Palestinian banks have remained stable despite the global economic crisis, but have suffered from deteriorated relations with Israeli correspondent banks since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, at which time Israeli banks cut ties with Gaza branches and gradually restricted cash services provided to West Bank branches. All Palestinian banks were required to move their headquarters to Ramallah in 2008. Israeli restrictions on the movement of cash between West Bank and Gaza branches of Palestinian banks have caused intermittent liquidity crises in Gaza and the West Bank for all major currencies: U.S. dollars, Jordanian dinars, but mainly Israeli shekels (NIS). 2014 Investment Climate Statement - West Bank and Gaza, U.S. Department of State, June 2014.

It is only my assumption but it would appear that, since Israel has veto powers over Palestinian Ramallah bank transfers to Gaza, it let through payments to PA civil servants in Gaza, while blocking the same for Hamas civil servants, since only the former were paid. Under the terms of the 23 April agreement, the task of sorting out Hamas salaries was delegated to a special commission. Under the unity government, Hamas could not pay its own men (apart from the fact it was broke, because that task was officially delegated to the PNA technocrat, I think it was Rami Hamdallah. There is a simple reason for this. Under the terms, Hamas was denied any role in the unity government, to reassure the West that the PNA was exclusively in charge, and that monies to the PNA would not fall into the hands of what some foreign states define as a terrorist organization. The PNA paid its own officials their salaries for two months, but dragged its feet on paying Hamas's cadres. What Sharon states is that Israel was behind this. As often, I do not know where the truth lies (truths don't lie, truisms and self-evident truths do, of course:). All I know is that, as in earlier contentious issues, I write what the best available sources tell me, do not challenge them, whatever my personal views or research suggest, and bid my time until further light is shed on the matter.

One could for the moment write 'Israel' reportedly blocked...' if the problem is in the implicit attribution of such a move to Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see two problems:

1. Attribution to Netanyahu (when the source says "Israel") and connection to the threat Netayahu supposedly saw. It is in the spirit of the source, but it simply doesn't make this connection even implicitly - the statements are more than 2 paragraphs apart.
2. Conflict with other sources (that can't be accused of being pro-Israel). I do not find your explanation about technicalities convincing. According to TheTimesAreChangin's stuff, "In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists".

The first problem is plain source misrepresentation that is easy to fix by splitting it into two separate statements, same as in the source. The second part can be solved by representing both versions, but I don't see what's the point in having it:

"Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity. Either Israel or PA blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials." - If I were to read it, my reaction would be "what's the connection and why is it notable?" I suggest to remove the salaries part altogether, maybe the threat/opportunity rhetoric as well since the next sentence quotes Netanyahu opposing the unity government - one does not oppose an opportunity. “WarKosign” 20:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I already suggested the solution to (1), so it is not a problem, - it is not source misrepresentation - almost every newspaper in the world uses interchangeabley what a PM determines and what the policy of his nation is. Please familiarize yourself with usage. The 'White House' is interchangeable with 'Obama'. Can I remind you and TTAAC that sources that are RS cannot be challenged for their content, unless manifestly wrong, or undue. You are both making a procedural error. There is nothing undue in stating that Netanyahu ignored the possibility of alternative responses to the unity government because he regards Palestinian unity as a threat. Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal, as his behaviour, that of the government he presides and his rhetoric consistently underline. There is nothing unusual about Assaf Sharon's observation.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What is notable to one person, is not notable to the other. It was notable for the writer, Assaf Sharon. Your objections seem based on dislike to distaste.

@Nishidani: Israel is a parliamentary democracy, so the prime minister is not the head of the state (unlike a president in USA. A reference to the White House or to 10 Downing Street is an unambiguous reference to the person who's official residence it is. While there is an official residence of the prime minister of Israel, it is not used as his office and is not used interchangeably. While it is possible that sometimes "Israel" is written instead of "prime minister of Israel" it is more likely that it means "government of Israel", "IDF", "people of Israel" or something else.

1. I am not questioning the source on point #1, I'm questioning your interpretation. The source does not state that Netanyahu (or Israel) decided to block the money transfer because he/it saw the unity government as a threat.
2. This source says that Israel blocked the money transfer. There are multiple other sources contradicting it. You cannot challenge RSs that say that it was Abbas's decision not to transfer the money to Hamas.

I wrote "not notable" about my own hypothetical bad version of article and suggested one that I consider better (remove opportunity/threat and the blocked salaries). You are welcome to suggest something else that would match all the sources, make sense and sound relatively good. “WarKosign” 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson, but you persist in ignoring the obvious solution I offered, even in your latest effort. I said you put 'Israel' as subject of the second clause yesterday, and ignoring this you put in a 'failed verification' tag. All you had to do for a compromise was insert 'Israel' as I suggested.

Just a note but The President of Israel is not Israel, whereas the Prime Minister heads the government whose policies are enacted as Israeli policies. The President of Israel has nothing to do with this.

Why are you asserting I joined the clauses with 'because'? I wrote:'Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials".' I then suggested this be emended to

Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and Israel blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials".

In neither case does 'and' in English connote 'because'. If you can point out some language where the equivalent conjunctions for 'and' and 'because' are interchangeable, I'd be curious, as a philologist.

There are no 'multiple other sources' contradicting Assaf Sharon's statement. That one source does not mention what Assaf Sharon stated does not contradict him (WP:OR) by the way. The premise here is that if two compatible versions of an event (it is quite compatible for Israel to insist Abbas not pay those salaries, since Israel has veto power over Ramallah banking transfers) exist, but a key detail in one is not in the other, then the key detail is dubious. That is nonsensical as an editorial rule.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Indeed splitting the sentence and changing the subject of the second sentence to Israel makes the statement match the source so it fixes problem #1. I did not understand that this was what you were proposing yesterday.

As for problem #2 - we have Sharon saying "Israel did X". We have 3 sources above (and there are plenty more online) saying "Abbas did X". Are you saying that it is not the same X, or that all the sources actually meant "Israel made Abbas do X" but accidentally forgot to write so ? Unless you have other sources collaborating Sharon, I suggest to consider his version fringe - maybe it deserves a mention, but it is not a part of the event sequence as seen by everybody else.

Use of the word and - check WP:SYNTH. The second example of how not to write uses the word and to imply a casual connection not present in the source. “WarKosign” 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

'And' is a connective particle, and both points come from the same article. There is no synthesis, but concision of paraphrase so WP:SYNTH is irrelevant.

Neither source (1) nor (3) tell one anything, because there are no details. Source (2) is excellent because it gives on some detailed insight. As I indicated above, Ramallah banking is subject to Israeli oversight. The unity agreement made the the new government fully responsible for the employees. But then the PA withheld the salaries of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam military employees of Hamas. it is logical to deduce that transfer of funds from the PNA in Ramallah would run into problems with Israeli authorities, which, given their line (shared by the US) that funding of 'terrorists' is unlawful, would regard the implementation of the reconciliation agreement dealing with the technocrats assuming responsibility for all employees as proof that the unity government was subsidizing terrorism were it to pay Hamas cadres. Now, I don't know where Sharon got his evidence (if you read his philosophical papers, his expertise is in logical and textual scruple) that Israel was behind the blocking of payments. Al Monitor writes not that Abbas blocked the payments but that:“would not be able to pay Hamas employee salaries prior to agreeing on all the details associated with the reconciliation agreement.” read properly that does not allow one to attribute to Abbas the decision: 'would not be able to pay' refers to technical ability, conditional on clarifications of the concrete details that had to be ironed re the implications of the generic declaration that the PNA's technocratic government would take over responsibility for employees.

Of course, we can sidestep the crux by writing for 'and the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials either blocked by Israel(ref Assaf Sharon) or withheld by the PNA (Adnan Abu Amer, 'Protests by Hamas government workers force banks to close,' Al-Monitor 9 June 2014).

This, like a lot of things here, is not a closed issue. My principle is to give all versions without prejudice. Most of what we think we know is just surface scratching. There's an excellent statement of the cognitive bias in a paper Assaf Sharon wrote with Levi Spectre,Dogmatism Repuzzled, on a puzzle by Saul Kripke. I don't presume to know the truths, so I have no trouble with fresh evidence or indications that might destabilize provisory impressions.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This solution of giving both versions works for me. In such case and would be connecting between two sources so it is unacceptable or even meaningless ("Netanyahu felt threatened and PNA blocked the transfer").

Two statements in the same source (where they are not connected) can be synthesized to imply a claim not in the source using and: "Before the current operation began, Hamas was at one of the lowest points in its history and on June 29 or 30 it restarted the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Even if there was a full stop, mere placement of sentences in a sequence implies causality: "It is raining. I will not leave my home today" - no, not because of the rain, I just don't feel like it. “WarKosign” 12:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reexamined all this in paragraph context, and now think we can drop the salary business as undue, though my reasons are mostly syntactical.

I'd remove a few other things as well, and drop the excess referencing which is a major problem on the page.

This is how I think one might rewrite it:

Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity. On the eve of the agreement, he stated that the proposed reconciliation would "strengthen terrorism", and called on the international community to avoid embracing it. Most of the outside world, including the European Union, Russia, China, India, Turkey, France and the United Kingdom, proved cautiously optimistic, and subsequently expressed their support for new arrangement. The U.S. more sceptical, announced that it would continue to work with the PNA-directed unity government. (ref=Mitchell Plitnick,'Palestinian Unity Causing Political Ripples in Washington,' Inter Press Service 2 June 2014.) Israel itself suspended negotiations with the PNA and, just after the announcement, launched an airstrike, which missed its target and wounded a family of three bystanders.

This removes the contentious salary issue, as you proposed originally. It nuances the U.S. position as distinct from the other named groups, using only one source to replace several. And slightly modifies Barzak. It also slices off the quite useless information about impact on relations with Israel. One of the major problems attending this page is source weight reduction. What do you think?Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable. I would like to write what was the target of the airstrike that wounded the 3, but writing "a man on a motorcycle" is as bad as not writing it at all. I couldn't find any source giving better information, it was probably classified by both sides. “WarKosign” 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Two men on a motorcycle, if I recall correctly. I could have written a 'father and his two daughters' but, for reasons of concision, I just wrote 'family'. In any case, if we're agreed, the passage can be amended as above by anyone. By the way, it may be wise to consider looking over multiple citation passages, and finding just one source that covers the sentence thus annotated. We could probably rid the page of a hundred odd reduplicative sources that way.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity:. {{insigned|xx?|yy}}

I do not see that this source approves connection between "the announcement" and airstrike:

• (only) "Adding to the tensions, an Israeli airstrike hit the northern Gaza Strip" &
• (moreover) "The air force often carries out airstrikes on suspected militants. Earlier this week, Gaza militants attempted two attacks on Israeli soldiers followed by a rocket barrage on southern Israel."

and from other source: IAF targets Gaza terror cell; rockets fired into Israel, By YAAKOV LAPPIN,REUTERS 04/23/2014

• "The Israel Air Force targeted one or more terrorists in northern Gaza involved in firing rockets at Israel, but the strike missed the intended target, security forces said Wednesday.
• Palestinian media later said four civilians had been hurt in the attack.
• The Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) had identified the target, which constituted an “imminent threat to Israeli security,” security sources told The Jerusalem Post after the air strike."
• The attack came two days after terrorists in the Palestinian enclave launched seven rockets into southern Israel
• (one only opinion for such connection?) MK Nachman Shai (Labor) criticized the decision to have the IAF strike targets in Gaza after the Hamas-Fatah agreement was signed".

--Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For ****'s sake, please think before objecting and obliging editors to respond. 'Adding to the tensions' contextually refers to the tensions of the declaration on April 23, the dateline for that article. A few seconds googling will tell anyone else that the airstrike referred to was on that same Wednesday, in the midst of the political uproar over the declaration an agreement had been made, and many sources confirm what Barzal notes (dateline 23 Apirl) i.e Reuters which states a muchhigher figure. 'Israeli air strike in Gaza wounds 12: medical officials,' 'Israel launched an air strike on Wednesday in the Gaza Strip, wounding 12 civilians including children and apparently missing its target, medical officials in the Hamas-ruled territory and Israeli reports' said. . .The strike was launched just after the Hamas Islamist group and President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestine Liberation Organization announced a unity agreement in Gaza City and two days after Gaza militants launched rockets at Israel, causing no injury.' Reuters, GAZA Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:37am EDT . Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Was there anything about this airstrike more notable than other airstrikes ? If it's only the timing and there was no long-term consequences, I think it's better to drop it. “WarKosign” 21:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, there is a long argument in many sources that airstrikes, and rogue Hamas or terrorist bombings are frequently timed to upset negotiations. MK Nachman Shai makes precisely that point apparently. The fact that Israel chose precisely that delicate moment to make one strike (when, note, the whole period was relatively calm) can be read several ways. But the coincidence is, at least from one perspective, very important, and that POV should not disappear.Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So very "relatively calm" "whole period" :( You may count the whole April's (not saying about March) number of terrorist rocket attacks by yourself. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's only timing we may place '.' after "suspended negotiations with the PNA" and that's all. If somebody wants to continue with the airstrike, we should add info about what was the reason for it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh fine. Every 'negative' fact in the article must be saddled with long additions explaining ad nauseam, with the same clichés, what the IDF or the government said on each and every occasion in defense of its decisions and actions. You're aiming for a mega text of 1,000,000 kb- The rockets into southern Israel were overwhelming demonstrative, and hit mostly desert at that period. 'Imminent threats to Israel's security' is template bureaucratese accompanying all decisions to make airstrikes, despite the extremely low level of effectiveness of mortars etc. at that period. It's much like 'imminent threat to their safety' accompanying all reports of IDF head and heart shots killing rocki-throwing teenagers on the West Bank. Just stick to the factual record. Let readers judge for themselves.Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you (your children...) some experience to live under these "The rockets into southern Israel were overwhelming demonstrative"?

See above my example for April only (23:50, 27 October 2014)

@Nishidani: "Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal..." - please list these observers. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Put 'neutral' and 'informed' observers.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Read up on Martin Indyk's views, and read Assaf Sharon's note p.20 that:'His press adviser told Yediot Ahronot that Netanyahu intentionally “led the talks nowhere.”' Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's all for so global conclusion? I hope you know that there are other "'neutral' and 'informed'" sources besides of these two ones that do not agree with them.

By the way, who is this Assaf Sharon ("'neutral' and 'informed'"?) whom you so like and placed his own POV almost to all sections of the article as a fact? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I happen not to agree with Mr Sharon on several points in his article, but that is neither here nor there. Neutrality is always a relative thing, as any philosopher like Sharon would acknowledge. He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of the newspaper pabulum cited as the main sources for this article, much of it written by hacks and POV pushers, as you can see at a glance by checking how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles. Like Thrall, Sharon gives a more detached perspective than what daily reportage allows, and the same is true of JJ Goldberg, with whom one often differs. Some years down the line, it is this quality of reportage, academic, or honest, or relatively balanced, which will replace our unfortunate dependence on newspapers. Newspapers have a 'party line' because they write for a constituency. Those three gentleman do not write or spin their texts to palliate national or sectarian interests. They inform themselves deeply, and strive to give a fair overview. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding to your "how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles". You may like it or not, but the fact is that

"Hamas or its military wing is designated as a terrorist organization by Australia,[10] Canada,[11] Egypt,[12] the European Union,[13][14] Israel, Japan,[15] the United Kingdom,[16] and the United States,[17] and is banned in Jordan.[18] It is not considered a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia,[19] Turkey,[20]China,[21][22][23][24] and some Arab nations."

One can see that "terrorism" is the common word for Hamas. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• "He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of" :)

Haaretz: Molad (where Sharon is academic director) - 'is "committed to leftist renewal" in Israel...'

NGO Monitor (MOLAD, 2012):

Officials: Avraham Burg is a founder and chair of Molad. Head of Molad is Avner Inbar, co-founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. Research director is Assaf Sharon, a leader of Breaking the Silence, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, and Ta’ayush. Director of Policy is Mikhael Manekin, former Breaking the Silence official.
Funders: According to an article in Ha’aretz, Molad is “funded by left-liberal foundations and groups from the U.S. associated with the Democratic party...”

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Shocking! Good grief! TAF employs people who believe in the democratic renewal of their country, try to build bridges of understanding, assist people robbed of their land, and whose futures are foreclosed on, philosophical humanists of distinction so 'leftist' they are funded by the Democratic Party of a foreign power, the U.S., (which is no doubt undermining with such diversion of funding, with such handouts, the chance of increasing the $3 billion + annually is forks out to Israel, which uses part of the cash to, precisely, build on Palestinian land in Sheikh Jarrah! Thanks for the laugh. I sometimes need a smile as I retire with a cup of tea to the saddling paddock after a weary day. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Already not shocking, but it's simply strange for me that you continue to name the man with so definite agenda as 'neutral' placing his own POV only as the fact.

So this your edit: "Assaf Sharon and Thrall alone would be sufficient to write these sections. Added AS" should be revised & attributed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thing to try and get the hang of some elementary things. Saying someone whose work you dislike or disagrees with, 'has an agenda' is meaningless, except as an expression of distaste. Those who use it have their own agenda. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To have an agenda means that “I know that h (my agenda) is true, I know that any evidence against h is evidence against something that is true; so I know that such evidence is misleading. So once I know that h is true, I am in a position to disregard any future evidence that seems to tell against h.” If you can show that Sharon or Thrall are known, in their worlds, for ignoring the evidence, you can say with reason they 'have an agenda'.

Scholars, or analysts in the worlds inhabited by the Thralls and Sharons of this world, cannot 'have an agenda' in this sense, because to have one would mean ignoring any evidence that contradicts what they think they know. Unlike journalistic hacks, spokesmen, politicians, and agenda-driven private think tank resident 'scholars', you can't get very far in your career if you are known by peers to constantly ignore, rather than confront, the available evidence. Journalists, politicians, et al. do not have peer review. If Thrall and Sharon as scholars need attribution, then every article cited on the page requires attribution to whoever wrote it and the organ it was published in.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

WarCosin. this use of 'attribution' for the term 'occupation' is completely wrong. It is the status of Israel's presence in international law, underwritten by the UN Security Council Resolution 271 (15 September 1969), calling on Israel to 'scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation' and by the International Court of Justice's Legal Consequences of the Construction nof a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There's no elbow room for playing mickey mouse with the text. Meshaal was using the standard language of law, not expressing his own opinion. I will revert this if no one else does.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I will revert it in just a moment. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: I see that you continue edit warring and again chose to push your version of the article instead of trying to achieve consensus. If you do not self-revert and try to discuss your proposed change I see no choice but to file an arbitration request against you. “WarKosign” 18:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Ok, I accept that Gaza is widely considered to be occupied. As long as "legitimate resistance" and such are attributed, I can live with "occupied". “WarKosign” 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's remarks concerned events in the West Bank (3 teenagers) as well. The West Bank is under law 'occupied', however one might like to equivocate on Gaza, referring to aingle judgement of the Gaza boat incident.

By the way, much effort went in to pinning the blame on Hamas for being behind the West Bank kidnapping, and now we are told Israeli intelligence says the mass civilian killing tunnel plot upset Hamas's plans. Readers will be laughing at the juxtaposition. Hamas upset its own plans.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hamas claimed it was a rogue cell, so not really a contradiction there. “WarKosign” 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WarKoSign, you yourself violated the 1RR. It's clear that Israel is the occupying force in the Palestinian territories. Meshaal actually speaks about the West Bank in this case. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very willing to discuss my edits, I've tried but not a single person has listened or replied to me. I notice you often revert without checking sources, taking part in discussions, does consensus mean your personal approval? You have made empty threats, told me I was breaking rules, and insulted me on many occasions. I don't feel you have any respect for me or other editors.

Considering that 99% of the world knows that Gaza has been under a brutal Israeli occupation for 47 years we can say that Israel occupies Gaza; Israeli propaganda does not outweight the truth. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid adjectives ('brutal') even if they are precise. And don't refer to 'Israeli propaganda'. That there is a 'government line' or hasbara is known, and it is a POV that must be included in every article, per policy. Israelis furnish by their documentation and scholarship our finest witness to events in this area.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: 1967+47=2014 (?) What occupation are you talking about? There is no occupation since 2005. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to be offensive, can someone please block him? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend you to bring some RS approving your version instead of these "offensive" proposals. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "offensive" in stating a fact, in this case that Gaza qualifies as an occupied territory. One may dislike, as I do, Pickles's tone, but the point made is quite correct. I would add that several editors here are not behaving as policy suggests we should, i.e., by careful attention to what other editors argue or edit in. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fact, really? It is a disputed issue and different experts say different things about it. It's very strange though for a territory to be considered occupied when there is no foreign military presence there. Hamas, and before him the PNA, runs Gaza like a mini-state, with its own laws, government, schools, foreign relations etc. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It looks like that you haven't noticed that my quote concerns to Dr. R.R. Pickles's '"offensive" blocking proposals'.

So your considerations about "several editors" have no sense. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an eagerness to pick on Pickles, but note what is generally going on. E.g. Last night.

He was reverted on sight, even when his calls look correct. E.g.this was reverted by User:Veritnight here, but Pickles, though using a stupid edit summary, was quite correct that the source he introduced corrected errors in the earlier sources used.

User:Veritnight then went and

reverted him soon after on the page where WarKosign has cited his evidence. I happen to agree with Pickles' edit there:the ITIC I have repeatedly noted is not demonstrably RS.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Under international law, Israel maintains effective control over the region. It controls the airspace, coastline, borders, the crossing of people, and is currently besieging the region to punish the Palestinians collectively for simply being born in Gaza. It is thus still categorized as an occupying power by most respected international institutions. The "disengagement" was a transfer of the several thousand illegal colonialist settlers to the West Bank, also illegally, and a disingenuous withdrawal of troops to make it seem as though control over the region is actually being relinquished. The motive for the disengagement was explained by Dov Weisglass, a confidant of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in charge of negotiating and implementing it. "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass told Haaretz. "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [U.S.] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress." JDiala (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of these details, the point is that we follow sources and do not use attribution when the view espoused is not, according to an individual (Meshaal), but a matter of international law, i.e., a verified factual situation.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: This question is more complicated than you represent. See the following:

• Israel’s High Court (January 2008):

"since September 2005 Israel no longer has effective control over what happens in the Gaza Strip. Military rule that applied in the past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory on a permanent basis, nor are they in charge of what happens there. In these circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to maintain public order in the Gaza Strip according to the laws of belligerent occupation in international law. Neither does Israel have any effective capability, in its present position, of enforcing order and managing civilian life in the Gaza Strip..."

• Is Gaza 'occupied' territory?

"In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded...

Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council."

See also discussion even in ICRC (!) : expert meeting: Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory. Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, ICRC

• With regard to Gaza, the matter is much more complicated, because there is no agreement on the question whether Israeli control of airspace and border are sufficient to establish authority under the Hague Regulations.
• “[t]he law of occupation applies to the areas over which the occupying power exercises effective control. It does not apply to situations where the adversary’s army is still capable of fighting, thereby precluding the exclusive control of the would-be occupying power. Therefore, the situation in Palestine cannot be subjected to the law applicable to hostilities if it is governed by the law of belligerent occupation, because no territory can legally be the occupied territory and area of hostilities at the same time.”
• etc.

• The proposition that the Strip remains ‘occupied’ by Israel has recently been refuted by an unexpected source – a UN Security Council resolution on Libya... Of course, the Libya resolution proves nothing new; the arguments that Gaza remained occupied after 2005 were always quite surprising.

and so on, up to other RS considering that this situation as double approach to Israel from the UN and some NGOs who traditionally have anti-Israeli position. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Perhaps Israeli-occupied territories and Status of territories captured by Israel are the right places to discuss the status of these territories. “WarKosign” 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. This is only answer for those who raised this subject here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Approximately 2000 casualtes

@Qudas: The article already tells the number of casualties in the first paragraph of the lead ("...fighting killed more than 2,200 people, the vast majority of them Gazans."), in the infobox and then in more detail in the #casualties section. Does your edit have a purpose other than to claim how bad Israel is ? "While the exact number of Palestinian who [sic] killed by the Israeli attacks is debated" - what about the exact number of people executed by Hamas or killed by their rocket failures, is it not debated as well ? "2000 Palestinians were killed, hundreds of them children" - what about hundreds of militants ? Why not "~2200 Palestinians were killed, hundreds of them militants, it is still debated how many of them by Israel" ? “WarKosign” 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The addition is unnecessary, and should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This section is relatively long and very bad formatted (probably because of multiple edits by different users). To make it more readable, it really needs a summarizing sentence at the beginning especially for readers who are skimming the article. While the primary purpose of this section is to give the extent of casualties on the Palestinian side, it needs figures (In its first sentences, even if approximate numbers) to give the gross picture. Mentioning of casualties in the head does not contradict the necessity of it in the opening sentence of this section. you may include the number of executed Palestinians (By Hamas) because it is also one part of the consequences of this war.(my suggestion would be: "and it is estimated that xxx Palestinians were also executed by Hamas during this war.") Please, it does not intend to claim how bad is Israel. I re-read the sentence and it does not say that it was Israeli's fault. There has been a war and it has had casualties, and the article should depict it as clearly as possible. But who is responsible for it? Maybe Israel, maybe Hamas, maybe both, or maybe a third party? This section does not aim to present who is guilty, it only presents the consequences of this war. The sentence may be rephrased to be more clear in its purpose(in giving a summary of the extent of casualties) but obscuring does not help. I think the problem is that you confuse death numbers(one issue) with Hamas manipulating data(another issue). I suggest opening a new section about how Hamas intentions to mislead media by exaggerating the casualties (probably to gain more sympathy) and move all the related info from this section to the new one. Why the children death should be highlighted? Because it is a very common practice. For example when there is an accident, you may hear "there was a car crash in which five people killed, a two-years-old child among them". Yes, you usually highlight losses of children (and women), but not of adult men or soldiers' (probably because death is part of a soldier's job) [Unsigned by Qudas, 27 October 2014‎]

@Qudas: If the reader is in a hurry, the number of casualties is present at the very top of the article both in the lead and in the infobox. If the reader scrolls all the way down to the casualties section, it doesn't make sense they would only read the first paragraph and walk away.

It is very DUE to represent the total number of casualties. This number is represented, 3 times over. Adding it again here, especially in the words you used ("by the Israeli attacks","hundreds of them children") does not seem to be intended to provide information but rather to appeal to the reader's emotions. There is very little disagreement on the total number of casualties (2150-2200), there is a lot of disagreement on nature of these casualties (500 or 1100 militants? 0 or 250 killed by Hamas ?). Taking the total number alone and saying "by Israeli attacks" takes a single interpretation and presents it as a fact, which promotes a specific POV. If I were to write "1000 militant and 750 civilian Palestinians killed by IDF attacks, 250 Palestinians killed by Hamas" you would object, wouldn't you ? To keep the article neutral we must always either include only undisputed facts or give representation to versions of both sides “WarKosign” 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.

@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

[19],[20] @Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond numbers of casualties given by Hamas health ministry, the numbers claimed by Palestinian presidentMahmud Abbas must be included.--Tritomex (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[21],[22]--Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Planned abduction/murder of civilians via attack tunnels

Mhhossein,TheTimesAreAChanging: Will these sources work for you ?

"Hamas had a plan," he said. "A simultaneous, coordinated, surprise attack within Israel. They planned to send 200 terrorists armed to the teeth toward civilian populations. This was going to be a coordinated attack.

"The concept of operations involved 14 offensive tunnels into Israel. With at least 10 men in each tunnel, they would infiltrate and inflict mass casualties."

“WarKosign” 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which newspaper is abused to further Israel's war on Palestine, with all the statements that have been proven false previously any reports coming from Israeli militants and officials should be ignored. WarKosign, are you one of the editors affiliated with the IDF? If you are you would have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles dealing with IDF's offenses.Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and TheTimesAreAChanging: Both of the sources are quoting what IDF has verified. Clearly, you should seek a third party source for such a challenging claim. You may also find many Hamas oriented sources denying such accusations. Who is right, really? Besides, no real proof is presented on what the Hamas militants aimed to do, even if we accept the news. Did they aimed to kill civilians or militants? were they going to make them scared or did they really aimed to make operation? How do you know? So, more reliable and documented sources must be presented. By the way, we'd better also ask other editors such as Nishidani and Kingsindian. Mhhossein (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein's revert is unacceptable. Since he has opted to call in the cavalry rather than defend his inexplicable classification of Vanity Fair as "fringe", I will note that Nishidani used it to source the US arming of Fatah in 2008.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, yet another outrageous accusation of paid editing by Dr. R.R. Pickles, which I will strike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Thanks, but I think Dr. R.R. Pickles should take the claim back themselves. I haven't had the pleasure of working with this user so far. If the personal attacks continue, I will consider measures that are in my disposal.“WarKosign” 08:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What kind of third party source do you imagine we can use ? Some military expert with access to all the data (with full cooperation by IDF and Hamas) that examined the situation and determined that such an attack was indeed planned or not ? Even if there was such a source, it would be immediately contradicted by another expert saying the opposite. I think the best we can do here as with many other subjects is to give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. “WarKosign” 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, denial by Meshal is already in the VF article:

Mishal insists that “the tunnels may have been outwardly called ‘offensive tunnels,’ but in actual fact they are ‘defensive’ ones.’” When pressed to explain why most of the tunnels actually ended up under or near civilian communities or kibbutzim—not military bases—he concedes, “Yes, true. There are Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza. Have any of the tunnels been used to kill any civilian or any of the residents of such towns? No. Never! . . . [Hamas] used them either to strike beyond the back lines of the Israeli army or to raid some military sites . . . This proves that Hamas is only defending itself.”“WarKosign” 08:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This story emerged during the war, presumably from 'interrogations' and the usual methods. At the time it was largely ignored by mainstream newspapers. Other than the IDF confirming now its story, in what mainstream Western newspapers, written by competent journalists, is this revelation mentioned? Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Ciralsky in Vanity Fair (magazine) for one.“WarKosign” 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are a couple more. Enjoy your reading. “WarKosign” 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Sorry for the delay. By a reliable third party source I did not mean a source who has access to the data of the both side. I mean a source with no (or the least) orientation toward the parties involved. I mean, we should not write such a challenging material on the basis of no real document! In fact non of the sources say how it is understood that the civilians were of the goals of hamas militants. I reckon, it is not fair to say for sure they were going to kill and kidnap civilians! But I'm in agreement with WarKosign when he says that we should give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. It is our Job here to let the Wikipedia readers know the claims of both sides, not for this specific subject but for all of the matters. We have to mention exactly who is claiming X and who is claiming Y and say why they are claiming so. If they have no reasoning behind their claims we can understand who might be right! This is what I believe and that's why I'm upset with how TheTimesAreAChanging is editing this text! I'd like to ask him to make a self revert, because of the problems mentioned above, or to mention that this is just a claim by a party and also add the claims from the opposite partiy. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think the sources above match this criteria, all of them attribute the claim to IDF officers. VF article is longer and more details than the others with the author going into a tunnel himself, and also quoting Mishal's denial. If we add Mishal'd denial (paraphrase of what is as quoted above), will it be sufficient in your opinion to consider this segment neutral ?

Another question - since this section deals with alleged intentional murder/abduction of civilians, would it be proper to move it to "alleged humanitarian law violations" section ? Alleged attack of civilians is certainly a violation, but how about planning and preparing for one? “WarKosign” 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither Glenn Beck's TheBlaze nor Inquisitr are 'mainstream' (what I asked for) sources. Neither are reliable. Vanity Fair is reliable. The content of VF's article is identical to that circulated in late July, and it is called by Ciralsky 'the alleged plan of attack'. Therefore, there is no update, nothing new. We havce a wartime allegation. And so again, why is the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, etc.etc. not reporting this astonishing leak, and why have no further details than those bruited about in July 2014 come forth?Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about The Blaze, which is why I'm surprised its my edit that has been repeatedly reverted. @Mhhossein, I attributed the claim to six senior IDF officials.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If six HAMAS officials announced that Israel was planning on nuking Gaza during the conflict would we add it and then balance it by writing that Israel denies their plans to nuke Gaza? Of course not, we would all see it as a clear media play, trying to defame their occupiers. We need to stop writing "IDF says this bad thing about HAMAS", "HAMAS says this bad thing about IDF", does anyone really believe that a nation which commits mass killings will see using the media to their advantage as going too far? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you also suggest to remove "According to Palestinians on 1 October, Israeli forces entered the Gaza Strip and fired upon Palestinian farmers and farms. No injuries were reported." or "A bomb disposal expert in the Palestinian Interior Ministry said that by 22 August, 8,000 bombs and 70,000 artillery shells, or 20,000 tons of explosives". It is not such a bad idea, I suggested to define an objective criteria for inclusion in the POV section. “WarKosign” 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should remove all Israeli media and all reports based on statements made by Israelis?! That is so such a bad idea. I of course only stated that the inclusion of attacks made by warring parties made through media should be questioned. I would never support a racist criteria for inclusion. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Two examples that I provided are actually by Palestinians. I meant that we need a way to decide if a statement by an individual is noteworthy or not. High ranking officials should probably be in, unnamed individuals should probably be out, but there is a wide range of notability between them. “WarKosign” 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'd like to add mesh'al denial. Could you please give me the source? Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: VF article has one, I believe Nishidani already added it. “WarKosign” 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he has done that. But I think it is not covered as it should be. Mhhossein (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The denial you added matches the source, however it gives the impression that Mishal speaks only about Gaza (and maybe the West Bank) when he say "occupation". it is not the case. Mishal himself said repeatedly that "Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, from its north to its south – is our land, our right, and our homeland. There will be no relinquishing or forsaking even an inch or small part of it". There are many quotes by different Hamas leaders making clear that they see all of Israel as "occupation". I do not now know how to include this note without interrupting the flow of the already complicated sentences and without it being WP:SYNTH “WarKosign” 05:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I think, as Mesha'l already noted that they don't aim civilians, he speaks only about Gaza and West Bank. It is clear that, Israeli civilians do live in other parts. Am I clear? Mhhossein (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: And yet at the beginning of the operation Hamas announced that "All Israelis now targets for missile attacks". So either Meshal doesn't represent Hamas's position or he lies. I think a note such as this clarifying different interpretations of his statement is in order. “WarKosign” 07:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can use the notes this way! we are not allowed to insert interpretations. By the way, Your note is WP:SYNTH. Mhhossein (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name

There was a 3 month moratorium on article moves, but now it's over. I'd like to consider the options.

Title	Pros	Cons	Google hits
2014 Israel-Gaza conflict	already exists, neutral	unclear time frame - when does it begin ? 12 June ? 8 July ?	30K
Operation Protective Edge	well defined time, similar to other operations,	some people consider it a biased title	525K
Operation Eaten Straw (Hamas's name)	not biased towards Israel	obscure	30 (not K)
Operation Solid Structure (PIJ's name)	not biased towards Israel	obscure	61K
Second Gaza war	unbiased	not in widespread use, sometimes refers to 2012 conflict	5K
50 day war (in Gaza)	unbiased, used by the media	doesn't fit the naming pattern of the rest of the articles, may refer to other conflicts	115K
Gaza War (2014)	unbiased, used by the media, similar to Gaza War (2008–09)	not one of the most popular name online	52K

What do you think ? Please add other names to the table and/or augment my pros and cons. “WarKosign” 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War (2014) - just like Gaza War (2008–09). Either that, or maintain how it currently is. JDiala (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War (2014) as per JDiala. 'Protective Edge' gets more hits as an Israeli operational name, naturally. But the most neutral term is this.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep existing name. It's not clear that either side consider this a war. Note that the 2008-9 conflict (which we do call a war) says "At the time, it was also referred to in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre and by Hamas as the Battle of al-Furqan.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

Fair enough. Another issue is that "Gaza war" is marginally POV, since it assumes the war took place solely in Gaza, even though many of Hamas' explosive projectiles we fired into and hit Israel-proper. So yes I'll take back my original statement the article should stay as it is. JDiala (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Same can be said about Gaza War(2008-2009) or the Second Lebanon War. Basically any modern warfare called after a place probably wasn't limited just to that place. “WarKosign” 06:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign, JDiala, and Nishidani: Hey! what about moving the page to 2014 Israel-Gaza War? As you know major differences do exist between war and conflict. Differences Between War and Conflict [1]:

• War is intentional, disclosed, wide spread and long duration armed conflict between countries.

• War requires mobilization of troops and use of arms and ammunition to destroy enemy targets.

• Conflict is disagreement between parties where parties perceive threat to their interests and needs

• Conflict can be between individuals, communities, or even countries

• There are mechanisms to resolve conflicts but when they fail, conflicts can give rise to full scale wars (when involving countries)

So, I reckon the incident was a real war. Mhhossein (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This conflict was not between countries - even if you consider Gaza (or Palestine) a country, the conflict was between Israel and Hamas. In any case, using these or other criteria to decide if it was a war or not is WP:OR. Same is correct for "Gaza War (2014)" - can we decide that it was a war ? There are sources that call it a war, but they are not the majority. “WarKosign” 09:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Hamas was the other party. But people of Palestine, mostly, supported it. By the way, How is it WP:OR? Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR or more specifically WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". We have sources giving details on the conflict. The source you found gives the criteria for decision between a war and a conflict. Combining the details with the criteria to make this decision is synthesis of the material, which is something we are not supposed to do. Haaretz clearly calls the conflict a war, there are many other sources - it's hard to tell if they are a majority. “WarKosign” 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Image Bias

Why is there such an abundance of pro-Israel images, including a frivolous "rocket" sculpture, but so few images from Gaza? The reader scrolls down the article, but instead of, as one would expect, viewing images of the colossal amount of death and destruction a defenseless, besieged, and occupied civilian population was subject to in Gaza, he finds a "rocket" sculpture, a "rocket" explosion, a few maps, the poor three illegal-settler men who were kidnapped and killed [no image of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian boy burned alive for being Palestinian, though, nor his cousin who was brutally beat up by soldiers of the most moral army in the world], and a single Palestinian lying on a stretcher, scarcely injured. JDiala (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: Please see the previous discussion of the same subject. If you think it's unfinished, let's continue from there. “WarKosign” 06:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Yes, it's quite clearly unfinished. First of all, some fundamental facts need to be established. Due weight must be given to the images. If we look at the war itself, it almost exclusively took place in Gaza. The vast majority of the casualties were from Gaza. The vast majority of the destruction was within Gaza. As such, the images, must reflect that. No doubt, images of the "rockets" must be included - but they should absolutely not make up more of the images than that which are from Gaza. Gaza should be the primary focus. Six Israelis died from the explosive homemade projectile weapons; 2000 Palestinians died. This is something which must not be forgotten; it's as though one would focus on the SS casualties in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising rather than the Jewish casualties. Let's look section by section:

I find this comment inappropriate, you're mixing up the aggressor firing rockets on civilian population with self defence. Being the underdog doesn't make one right and being strong doesn't make one Nazi.

• It's possible the Nazi comparison was overkill; however, the core fact is still true: Gaza was the main battleground, and this article should reflect that. Whether or not it was "self defense" is a POV claim and quite contestable, but what I am saying is neutral; it's common knowledge.

• Infobox - Balanced
• Background - There are two pro-Israel images. The rocket attack, and the sculpture. There is one pro-Palestinian; the street in Ramallah. Either remove one for Israel, or add one for Palestine - possibly one relating to the siege.

• You are ignoring the map of the blockade. The map shows alleged violations by Israel, the sculptures - violations by Gazans. Then there are two images of attacks by each size during Operation Brother's keeper.

• You're correct. I thought it was just a map, but it shows the blockade.

• Operation Timeline - There are, again, two pro-Israel images[murdered teens, residents of Ashkelon run for shelter], one pro-Palestinian image[man on stretcher], and one "neutral" image [the map]. The pro-Palestinian image is also, in my view, not particularly good. It's just a young man, slightly injured, lying down. Anyone who looks at the images for section only would, erroneously, think Israel is the main victim. The same thing ought to be done here - balance it either through removing a pro-Israel image[three Israeli teens], or adding a pro-Palestinian image[Mohammed Abu Khdeir]

• Can you find an image of Mohammed Abu Khdeir? Even the article dealing with his death lacks one. The map is not neutral, it shows where Israel reportedly attacked Gaza.

• Well, yes, I can. One can simply do a Google search. Two examples, from reliable sources, are here[23][24] There is also a second option of removing the three teenagers. Regarding the map showing the damage in Gaza, yes, but, as I said, that's not sufficient to establish POV. It doesn't showcase any alleged violations; just areas where Israel fired. The image could in principle be considered pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, depending on the context. This is not true for other images. It is therefore neutral.

• Are they actually usable on Wikipedia ? They have to be either copyright free or fair use. If you believe they are, go ahead and add one.

• Well, I'm not quite sure. Though there is the second option of removing pro-Israel image (to attain balance)

• Impact - Four pro-Israel images [IDF-released map of rocket launch sites; Rocket shards fell on this playground in central Israel; A kindergarten in central Israel during a rocket attack; shelter signs that were placed in the Ben Gurion Airport]; Two pro-Palestinian images [Injured child; Ruins of buildings in Beit Hanoun (which is quite a weak picture, doesn't show true extent of destruction)]. One neutral [A map showing the location of damage in Gaza. The reason this is neutral is because the "damage" could be civilian damage or military damage, thus it's not biased in any true sense. Israel supporters could say it's military damage and Palestine supports could argue to the contrary. It's difficult to interpret].

• Map - I see "A map showing the location of damage in Gaza", playground is under "timeline" (it's even transcluded from the timeline article) and I agree it's undue here (even though I WP:LIKE it having taken it myself). There are 3 pro-Gaza vs 2 pro-Israel images in the Impact section. As I wrote in the other discussion, it is fair and if there is an image of a destroyed mosque it would be fitting to add it near the section dealing with destruction/military use of mosques.

• If we look at all of the images from the Operation Timeline section to the Reactions section, there are six pro-Israel images, and there are four pro-gaza images. Even still, the UNOSAT picture of Gaza hardly shows any damage, so I'm being quite lenient in now deciding to consider it pro-Gaza.

• The map only shows damage sites in Gaza. If it was to show the damage sites vs the launch sites (and how they happen to correlate exactly), it would be neutral. The way it is presented now it clearly promotes the POV "Gaza suffered from unjustified violence". If you think it is neutral, let's remove it.

• No, then it would be pro-Israel, since it would show the "purity of arms" of the IDF. Currently, we cannot established whether or not the targets were indiscriminate/targeted civilians, or that they targeted solely militants, the image is neutral. I can pass the UNOSAT map as pro-Gaza, though, since it states that thousands and thousands of houses were destroyed in Gaza.

• This is incorrect. It is under "impact"[25]. It least that's how it seems on my desktop. Regardless, that is irrelevant; the bias exists for the article as a whole, not just individual sections. We can look at several sections together and the issue will still remain.

• I see 6 pro-Israel (killed teenagers, people running to shelter, launch sites in gaza, playground, kindergarten, shelter sign) and 5 pro-Gaza (wounded in Gaza, UNOSAT map, damage map, Beit Hanoun ruins, wounded Shaymaa). I already agreed that it would be fitting to add a picture of Abu Khdeir if possible, and/or a picture of a ruined mosque. If not, we can remove the playground.

• Reactions - Balanced, though the biblical reference ideally ought to be replaced.

• Remove playground. Furthermore, the damage map is neutral not pro-Gaza, as previously noted, so, at least in my view, another image would need to be removed either (or, conversely, added, though I'm not quite sure as to how the copyright issue works)

• I agree, there are images of secular signs in support of the operation. Here is one for example: "Dear soldiers, you are our heros, look out for yourselves".

• Okay.

• Done.

• Alleged violations of international humanitarian law - Two pro-Palestinian [People in Beit Hanoun in Gaza; A destroyed ambulance in Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip]. One pro-Israel [House destroyed by a rocket in Yehud]. This one is somewhat iffy. The first image is just people standing among rubble. We ought to find a better image; it is, after all, about violations of IHR.

• Military operations, weaponry and techniques - One pro-Israel [Range of missiles launched from Gaza Strip; the usage of the word 'missile' clearly implies bias]; Two neutral [IDF soldier overlooking an uncovered tunnel in the Gaza Strip; IDF Artillery Corps fires a 155 mm M109 howitzer]

• Tunnel is an example of Hamas war technology, the range map also gives details of Hamas war technology. M109 is a single example of Israeli war technology. A few more examples war technology of each side would be fitting, such as Hamas rockets on launchpads or Israeli planes/tanks/etc. Here is one image of Hamas's war technology.

• No, you are looking it from the point of view of "war technology". However, I am looking at it from the perspective of potential IHL violations. The tunnels could very well be considered pro-Israel, since they are by many considered "terror tunnels". For example, if we, hypothetically, have half of our pictures related to rocket attacks, and the other half of Hamas munitions, then even though in theory it is neutral[ie half pro-Israel; half pro-Palestine], it will in practice be clearly pro-Israel, since it portrays the Palestinians as the aggressors.

• I'm looking on the images under "alleged violations" from the "IHL violations" perspective, and on the images under "Military operations, weaponry and techniques" from "war technology" perspective. Under violations we have 2:1 pro-Gaza bias. Under military technology we have 2:1 more representation of Hamas war technology by it is easily fixable. Even if we were to add images for alleged violations of IHL, do you have specific pictures in mind ? Are they available ?

• I believe you are misinterpreting them. Starting from the IHL violations section, the first two are pro-gaza. The next two are pro-Israel. And the next two are neutral. The tunnel can be, as previously stated, considered pro-Israel, since it's often considered to be a "terror tunnel". It is not, as you say, pro-Gaza. That is simply inaccurate. It serves to portray the image that the Gazans are terrorists. The image of the Israeli tank is neutral, since it doesn't particularly support either narrative. Even if the "war technology" issue is balanced, the article can still be POV.

• How would you suggest to rename the missiles ? "Cylinders with explosives launched towards general population without intention of hurting anyone" ?

• Rockets. That is the NPOV term. Anything else is most likely POV. Hamas' rockets did not constitute missiles.

• Technically they are both rockets (self-projecting cylinders using rocket engines) and missiles (projectiles fired with the intention of causing damage to the targets). If they weren't missiles but only rockets (say, used for fireworks or satellite launches) the map would be pointless, so the point of the map is to show the ranges were these missiles can cause damage. Calling them just rocket wouldn't be NPOV, it would be misrepresentation.

• WP:RS sources almost universally describe them as rockets. By far, they are the most commonly used term. Missiles has a clearly stronger connotation, and is generally only used sometimes by right-wing sources like Israel National News or Jerusalem Post. Hamas rockets, at least from the lead of the article on missiles, do not seem to constitute the actual definition of the term either.

There are therefore four surplus Israeli images, even though, as mentioned in the beginning, it should clearly be the other way around. JDiala (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala:Please see my comments inside. I think there are several problems with your classification, and there are a few changes that I agree should be made. “WarKosign” 07:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Responded. JDiala (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: Re-responded. “WarKosign” 21:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: JDiala (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: (Responding here since the nesting got too deep to be helpful)

• I am OK with removing the playground.
• If you consider the damage map neutral, let's replace it with another image. If you don't want to remove it, don't call it neutral.
• Rockets vs missiles - the image says "missiles", but we can write "rockets" in the caption underneath it.
• Military techniques - tunnel and the rocket ranges show Hamas's military techniques (and promote the viewpoint "Hamas is violent and strong"). The image of M109 howitzer shows Israeli war technology and says "Israel is violent and strong". If you want to add one more, pick one here - there are tanks, APCs, bulldozers, warships, drones, soldiers.

“WarKosign” 09:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Shuja'iyya 20.07.2014.mp4 snapshot 01.05.jpg

@WarKosign:

• A single image isn't enough. I also have an issue with the murdered teenagers. I don't think there are any non-copyright images of Mohammad Khdeir, so the images of the murdered Israeli teenagers must go(though it's of little relevance which pro-Israel image is deleted; you can remove any).
• I have no problem with neutral images. They're "bonuses", so to speak. They don't affect the balance of POV, so there's no reason to remove them unless they're clearly undue or copyright.
• Okay
• Okay
• Also, if you look at the Hebrew page for this article, there is an image [26] which is quite nice from the pro-Gaza perspective. I'd say it ought to be included. JDiala (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The image of the three teenagers is very DUE and it would not be fitting to remove them just because there is no image of Mohammad Khdeir. Would you agree to remove Mohammad Khdeir's image if there was no usable image of the teenagers ?
• If the map of the damaged areas in Gaza is neutral then the map of the rocket launch sites is neutral as well, so we're balanced here. The article is already overloaded with images, they are overflowing into following sections where they don't fit, we don't need more bonuses - if anything we should remove a few. The playground is a good candidate, if it will satisfy your balancing needs.
• The image is blurry, and the junk and rubble in the streets as well as unpainted exterior of the buildings were there before the attacks, so the image depicts a seemingly old woman dragging a child while something burns with a lot of smoke in the background. Might as well be a scene of familial abuse and burning trash. But sure, if you think it's better than any of the existing images - go ahead and replace. “WarKosign” 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Alright fine. I still don't see why, for example, we need the "kindergarten in central Israel during a rocket attack", considering only one Israeli child died, compared to the 500 Palestinian children, but whatever, I can compromise. We should remove the playground and add one pro-Gaza image. There's a number of contenders: The one I previously linked, [27],[28], [29], and also possibly a video [30]. Which one do you think is best? JDiala (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: In the 4-part image only one part shows any damage and then it's behind smoke/dust, so little can be seen. In the video the sirens, the reckless driving and the shouting create a sense of urgency and stress, while all that there actually is is a single car burning. I think either of two pictures on the right give more details, with the ruins probably being a good replacement of people standing around an excavator at "destruction of homes". I think this is the kind of image people would expect. “WarKosign” 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Yes, I agree with that; the ruins and the still frame seem to be the better images, better than the 4-part one at least. To, at least somewhat, balance out the article, the net increase should be two more pro-Gaza images. Right now the "consensus", at least from what I'm getting, is removing the pro-Israel playground image, and adding a pro-Gaza image, so the aforementioned goal is attained. If you merely want to replace a pro-Gaza image[the excavator one], then the net increase is zero, and we're not getting anywhere. If you think the excavator image is extraneous or of little value and ought to be replaced, then we'd need to add two pro-Gaza images (the ruins and the still frame) to get the same value as +1 for Gaza. JDiala (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: You wrote "The first image is just people standing among rubble. We ought to find a better image". This image of ruins is IMO a better one. According to the count above, if we remove the playground (and, if you want, replace the map of attacked sites in Gaza with something you won't call neutral) we will achieve balance.

Regarding your point above I missed - the picture of the kindergarden is only a visual aid. It is probably fun for a child to "play turtle" and lay down on the floor for a few seconds. Permanently being ready to run to shelter is not fun. “WarKosign” 08:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: If that image was taken during an actual rocket attack, then I highly doubt it was "fun". And yes, you're correct; I did write that. I must have forgot. Okay here are my proposals

• Remove playground image
• Remove excavator image
• Add the still frame image (top right) and the image of the ruins (bottom right). Any objections? JDiala (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: No objection. Note that as a result there will be more "pro-Palestinian" images but as I wrote at the very beginning it is fair. “WarKosign” 10:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, changed. Though I had to change the Timeline of Operation Protective Edge article to replace the playground image, because it was transcluded. JDiala (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

silverstein

It's a primary source, and reliable for its own views. So the objection on RS grounds is spurious as it is only being used for its own view. nableezy - 17:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Has this been previously established via consensus? Blogs are almost always unreliable. See WP:UGC JDiala (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with exclusion is this. What differentiates an edit citing Silverstein's blog from the edits which have introduced 18 other references to blogs? If blogs are unacceptable, then all blog references on this page should be taken out. If there is something uniquely peculiar about Silverstein's blog, a feature not shared by all the other blogs, I'd like some clarification on it.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, a self-published site such as blog is a reliable source of information on the person who writes the blog, as long as it does not contain claims about third parties. Silverstein's blog entry referenced here is all about third parties, so it is disqualified.

Per WP:NEWSBLOG some organizations have columns called blogs which are not WP:SPS. "IDF blog" for example is how IDF spokesperson’s official outlet is called, presumably to sound cool. Being the official channel through which IDF spokesperson makes the announcements, it is as reliable a source as it gets for claims made by the IDF spokesperson. “WarKosign” 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly... Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are other blogs - other than the "IDFBlog" - which are used as sources, they should be removed immediately. JDiala (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't check all 547 sources, but from a search for "blog" other than the IDF blog there are B'Tselem's photoblog and Times of Israel's liveblog. I think both fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. Are there any other blog sources in use ? “WarKosign” 07:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, the source is used solely to document Silverstein's view, and Silverstein has been published in this area by reliable third-party sources, so this is not some random blog on the internet. The source is used to document a notable criticism of the IDF line, a criticism repeated by others. nableezy - 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this blog is a great source to document Michael Ross's view on Silverstein, then.

In fact he has an entry on the subject of flight bans to the Ben Gurion airport. This ban is mentioned in the article, so we can add his comment: "Michael Ross wrote that the decision was driven by anxiety and caused considerably more damage than the potential danger it prevented.“WarKosign” 07:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)