Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Gaza War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Human shields

See box. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Result: Wikipedia should not state that Hamas has admitted to using human shields.
Seven editors supported inclusion of the material and ten opposed inclusion.
The main argument in favour of inclusion was that a statement by Sami Abu Zuhri appeared to encourage Palestinian civilians to act as human shields. It was argued, therefore that an admission by Hamas of using human shields is reliably sourced. I don't think this is a convincing argument. It seems clear that Hamas do deny using human shields and, in the quote, no clear reference is made to the concept of human shield, as it is normally understood. As one editor puts it, "homes are not combatant targets." I agree with this perspective, and I think it represents the bottom line.
Against inclusion it was argued that Israel has used human shields. Without saying whether this is true or false, I am not sure that it directly relevant. It was also argued that the quote has been "pulled from obscurity" to make a point. This may also be true, but I have not taken it into account - as indicated above, I think there is a clear bottom line in this case, which allows the numerical majority in the vote to hold sway.
There was some discussion of whether opinion pieces characterising Hamas as using human shields were sufficient to support the claim. I do not think they are, because we should treat opinion pieces with caution and because it is not clear that the sources are using the term in the conventional legal sense which our readers would expect (if I stay in my home to prevent it being bombed then I am in some sense a "human shield", but not in the conventional sense). This does not necessarily present the attributed opinions of the authors in question being included in the article, nor does it particularly authorise that.
It should be noted that this close has been made narrowly on the question of whether approving of people staying in their homes during a military attack constitutes making human shields of them. I'm aware that there are other accusations against Hamas relating to human shielding, and this close has nothing to do with those one way or the other. Several editors commented in the RfC that they believed Hamas to have used human shields. It should be noted that this is not the question of the RfC, which asks whether Hamas has admitted this.
Overall, it seems to me that there is no clear evidence that Hamas has supported the use of human shields by encouraging people to remain in their homes and that the majority view of participants in the RfC accords with this.

Our text currently reads that "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. " and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets,[196] an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields,both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [1]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

Current article text reads "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources (see sources below) have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

clarification The question is not "Should we say Hamas admitted to use of Human shields in video X" but "Should the video be mentioned, in the context that entities/sources X,Y, Z have brought it up in discussions/allegations about IF Hamas uses human shields". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources discussing this quote found after the creation of the RFC

Sources from above (expanded so URLs can easily be read)

Snippets from the relevant sources discussing the quote/video for convinience

Newsweek : "Another video published on the site shows Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza, encouraging people to use their bodies as human shields to further deter IDF strikes.".
USA Today "Netanyahu says Hamas is using civilians as human shields. The Israel Defense Forces issued photographs on its blog Tuesday showing a crowd of people, including children, on a building's roof after Israel urged that it be evacuated.The blog also shows a July 15 video clip of Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri commending people for ignoring Israeli warnings. "The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself," Abu Zuhri said.
WSJ "Earlier this month Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa TV and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields."
Herald Sun "Again, Hamas knows that, which is perhaps why its spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri boasted on Al Aqsa TV on July 8 that Hamas’s tactic of using civilians as human shields “has been proven effective”."
Asian Age "The Israeli Defence Forces, which circulated a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri encouraging the use of human shields, said that Hamas is instructing Gazan population to climb rooftops and protect its terrorists."
TimesHerald (reprint of USA today)
Washington Post "The Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, admitted July 8 that Hamas was using the Palestinians as human shields and that this had has proven to be effective."
channel4 "Actually Hamas has made no secret of advocating the use of civilians as human shields to try to face down Israeli aggression.A senior spokesman for the group, Sami Abu Zuhri, gave an interview on Palestinian station al-Aqsa TV earlier this month."
Globe and Mail "Hamas openly encourages civilians to act as human shields. Here’s what Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri had to say recently on Al-Aqsa TV (via the Middle East Media Research Institute): “This attests to the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people, who defend their rights and their homes with their bare chests and their blood … We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy in order to protect the Palestinian homes.”"
LA Times "Against this Israeli effort, Hamas employed a counter-strategy of trying to prevent civilians from heeding Israeli warnings. On July 8, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on local television and called on Gazans to serve as human shields against Israeli air attacks."
Time "What makes Hamas’ actions a double war crime is that they target civilians in Israel while exploiting civilians in Gaza and using them as human shields.Hamas is building its terror command centers and weapons storage facilities among schools, hospitals and mosques, showing no regard for civilian lives. Israel’s concerted efforts to avoid harming uninvolved civilians have been well documented. Hamas instructs the people in Gaza to ignore Israel’s phone calls, leaflets and text messages, warning civilians of pending attacks against terrorists. Knowingly, they put Palestinians in harm’s way turning them into propaganda tools.Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in a television interview earlier this month, “the fact that people are facing Israeli warplanes bare-chested to protect their homes, I believe this procedure has proved its efficiency. And we in the Hamas movement call on our people to adopt this procedure.”
Washington times 2 "But Hamas’ “Interior Ministry” has cynically instructed Gazans to ignore these warnings, and has encouraged their people to act as human shields. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told the terror organization’s al-Aqsa TV network last week that instructing people to serve as human shields was an, “effective policy,” and one that, “reflects the character of our brave, courageous people.” He continued by blatantly stating, “We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy.”

I have notified the NPOV, NOR, and RSN noticeboards about this RFC

Survey

include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, N. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says:"When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my vote to "include" for the reasons given elsewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my mind again, mainly due to WP:UNDUE. I am going to simply "abstain" and leave my comment for purposes of discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Include explained that it's proof of a "human shield" strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Include - The use of human shields is a serious accusation that is backed up by evidence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't include It is original research and requires a secondary source to connect the dots. A human shield is a non-combatant and involuntary. People who stood in front of tanks in Tiananman square were not human shields. Had they instead tied up Kindergardeners and laid them in front of the tanks, those children would have been human shields. TFD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't include because in a highly charged context, the quote, whose context and translation are murky, becomes a reprehensible way of justifying the bombing of a civilian population. There's no way to pretend this isn't a political issue. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't include as it's WP:SYN to imply that the statement has any relation with Hamas using human shields. // Liftarn (talk)
Don't include, basically per Liftarn. But. It is an identified ID propaganda meme, not appropriate to historical narrative, except to note that it is an Israeli meme used to sway Western public opinion. It is a vicious 'spin' on complex events, using one obscure quote to frame a battle strategy which has no other option than to fight from urban areas, as in every known war, and as Yitzhak Laor writing for the London Review of Books entitled a similar strategy, the taking point is to drive home to the world that 'You (Hamas) are terrorists, we (ID) are virtuous.' (Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006 pp.11-12). Every single meme deployed by Israel's Foreign Ministry, the ID and many users in here to press this 'case' of cowardly warfare by Hamas has been cooked up in defiance of history, Jewish history in its most desperate moments, as Uri Avnery wrote some days ago:

For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists.” We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape.” Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding.” They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels.” Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.'

If anyone tried to write the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Nazi antisemitic spin that high casualties were caused by the use by the Jewish resistance of women and children as human shields, I'd not only automatically revert it: I'd report him.

The Poles' resistance in Warsaw is a Jewish resistance. Only yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front line, to take advantage of the Germans' sense of scruple.' This obscene crap was reliably noted down by Mihail Sebastian Journal, 1935-1944, Pimlico, 2003 p.238, reporting what the antisemite (to the end of his life) Mircea Eliade said at the time.

Worst still, as I have often noted, the Israeli Supreme Court has condemned to IDF for the practice, and with impunity it is known to have consistently used Palestinian children to this end, from Jenin to Operation Cast Lead (see here, only one of numerous cases). Yanir Yagna, a Likud MK publicly called for deploying Palestinian prisoners (many without formal charges against them) as human shield against Qassam rockets. Of course that and dozens of other pieces of rhetorical shit people like myself notice are never worked into wiki pages. Or if they are, it's usually some POV-crank who does it. It was even used of Hezbollah, with even Amos Oz spouting it in 2006 ('this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags,') only to be informed, if he ever troubled to follow up the technical literature, that Human Rights Watch in its report on the 2006 found to be completely unfounded, though it did find Israel had both repeatedly bombed both "individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages" as well as "humanitarian convoys and ambulances" that were "clearly marked,"(just as here).Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't include - Seems like we'd be extrapolating a bit too much on one comment from one individual. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't include per WP:UNDUE. The comment appears pulled out of obscurity, and the secondary opinion/interpretation that it relates to the concept of human shields is extraordinarily inflammatory, and I'm not seeing anywhere near the WP:WEIGHT to include it. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't include Seems irrelevant what word-spin is going on, and also sources talk more of events and give statements than have cites talking about the wording of the statements so you'd wind up at fringe discussions or OR. Just do not driven there by prominence nor following something so do not go there. Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield esp.this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the Ist three days which look like war crimes because strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, (the United States of Amnesia), whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist)

Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH:

Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings".
Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party, and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said:"Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis."

Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is WP:Undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: [2] Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "evidence" to some other word(s) that means "this is what israel pointed to to support their allegations"

ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to put in sourced arguments or statements to the contrary, do so. But this is a statement by the spokesperson of Hamas, and allegations by Israel that are discussed in numerous top tier sources. If we censored every statement or incident that was disputed by the beligerents it would lead this to be a very empty article wouldn't it? WP:NPOV mandates inclusion of every notable POV. Is it your argument that this POV has not been widely discussed? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My objections have been pretty much conveyed by editor 'Kingsindian'. The current placement of Abu Zuhri's quote is strongly implying that Abu Zuhri (and thus Hamas) are encouraging people to shield combat targets and places where weapons are stored. That is NOT what he said and you know that very well, and no amount of sources making such connection will justify its inclusion in the manner you have put here. Never mind the fact that the usage of "human shield" here is entirely misleading to begin with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have discussed the quote, directly in the context of the question of if Hamas uses human shields or not. If you have reliable sources disputing this association, please present them and include them as a counterargument in the text. Otherwise your objection is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which "reliable reference" conflates between the "storage of weapons in schools" AND Abu Zuhri's call for civilians to stay at targeted areas? While the term "human shields" is used, none of your sources interprets Abu Zuhri's statement as one intended to protect combat targets or storage sites. They all seem to agree that it is reference to the protection of people's own homes (how dare they). The content you added and the way it is presented is implying that Abu Zuhri demanded that people stand firm on top of rocket launchers and accept Israel's air strikes, which is a distortion of what he actually said and I believe that falls under WP:SYNTH. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that you have not responded for days. I removed the problematic content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response, I have had various emergencies at work that limited my wikipedia time. I have restored the content. Multiple entities have mentioned the statement, in the context of human shields, along with the other elements discussed. They are not conflated, but they are all discussed as items that people use to back the allegation of human shields. If a source writes a paragraph about each item, and we say "They pointed out A, B, C , and D" that is just WP:SUMMARY not any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best wording is something like: Israeli has asserted that Hamas uses 'human shields' to defend militants and weapons based on Israeli's analysis of videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings, allegations that Hamas has rejected. Or what would you all suggest?

In terms of Zuhri's quote, it's not clear at all (as referred to by many people in the RFC) that's he calling for people to submit themselves into being shields. Putting that spin on it is, well, just that: a certain Israeli-based spin, which is their legitimate POV to assert but shouldn't be written as just a fact. Word it like: Israelis have also cited __'s comment of "__", which they argue is a call for human shielding but Hamas has disputed.? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarketsObviously various people (including myself) may have issues with some final unknown wording, but I think words roughly to the effect of what you have proposed are workable. Israel (and multiple reliable sources) have pointed to certain events and stated an interpretation. That interpretation disputed. I have no objection to categorizing things as the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the relevant parties nor providing space for the contrary POV (assuming such can be sourced)- but several above have stated that the allegations/interpretation cannot even be presented, and that is unacceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ll of the "sources" used are opinion pieces (and appear to be from highly partisan ones) and therefore not reliable for making the statement that Hamas admitted to using human shields. It is not obvious from the statement that Hamas was admitting to using human shields. They do not say they are forcing non-combatants to stand between them and the Israelis, nor do they say they are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether in fact they are using human shields is another issue, but twisting a statement into a confession is tendentious. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Times, Newsweek, LaTimes (right wing rag if I ever heard of one!), UsaToday are all partisan? In any case, the RFC is not "Should way say Hamas admitted it" but "should this quote even be discussed" - The current article text clearly says Israel alleges Human shields, and as part of that allegation points to the video. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No they are not partisan, but they publish opinions of people of various views, including partisans of both sides. Claiming that an editorial published in one of these sources is a statement made by the publication is misleading. For example you just posted on my talk page a quote that you attributed to the Globe and Mail., which you also cited above, claiming that Hamas had admitted using human shields. The actual source is an opinion piece by Margaret Wente, a highly partisan columnist for the Globe and Mail who, among other things, has written that Canada should become part of the U.S. Do you understand the difference between news reporting, opinions of publications and the opinions of people asked to contribute their opinions to newspaper columns? TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Yes I do. I also understand the difference between trying to say something in wikipedia's voice, and saying that X has made allegation Y and pointed to Video Z as part of that allegation. or that Z exists and people can make their own judgement about what it means. Nobody on wikipedia is proposing saying "Hamas admitted to using Human shields in this video" (although I admit my statement in the section PRIOR to the RFC can be read that way). There are allegations and discussions about human shields. This video is mentioned repeatedly in those allegations and discussions. Should our article mention the video? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with attributing the claim to some proper source, like Israel and some commentators, or something like that. While it is of course preposterous drivel to me, unfortunately a lot of people, like thos who Gaijin42 cited, do believe in drivel; who am I to say they shouldn't get space on Wikipedia? Properly attributed, the inclusion is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian Would you be so kind as to update your !vote to that effect? Once the matter of basic inclusion is settled, I think conformance to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should not be an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment' Unarchived section. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

"could not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters because the night vision goggles made everything look green"

@Kingsindian: regarding your edit

This is the paragraph from the source I assume you are paraphrasing:

Avi, the Golani combat soldier, said he often has trouble distinguishing civilians from Hamas fighters while inside Gaza, as some fighters are dressed in plainclothes. “You see everything in green … little green people,” he said of his view through night-vision goggles.

Note that there are two statements: 1. Avi has trouble distinguishing civilians from fighters dressed in plainclothes. 2. Everything in night-vision goggles looks green. Neither Avi nor the author of the article implies that #2 is causing #1 - WarKosign (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You are correct that they are technically separate sentences, but it seems to me that the second sentence is clearly linked to the first. Why is the second sentence present at all, if not linked to the first? If you give me some other arguments, I will revert the edit, while we discuss this. Kingsindian (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Classic case of not understanding what an epexegetic sentence means. The first sentence is the reporter explaining what Avi is saying. The second sentence clarifies it by a direct quote. As the source has been manipulated, replacing Avi's direct comment with 'Soldiers and analysts stated that the policy was that protecting IDF soldiers was a higher priority than protecting Gazan civilians'. The whole text says:

“The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians,” Avi said. “If this means to kill civilians, then OK.”Many soldiers and IDF analysts have confirmed this policy, including Yaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University. “Israel is more sensitive than any other country in the West to the death of its soldiers,” Ezrahi told the Daily Beast. “The death of [Palestinian] civilians is a moral crisis but is without political impact.”

Huge efforts have been made to plaster the IDF claim that casualties are the result of a human shields policy.One tidbit (from numerous examples I could cite) like this and it is buried by misparaphrase.

Avi's quote is the opposite of 'before they take care'. Before here means, that first we care for our soldiers and then when care for Palestinians. Avi is saying: if caring for our soldiers means Palestinians get killed, that's fine, and this is the 'policy' confirmed by Ezrahi who says in effect, IDF deaths have a political impact, Palestinian deaths do not. The latter are just a moral (i.e. personal) problem with no weight.

So what has been done is not only elide the quote, but reverse its meaning to favour the IDF construction, while misconstruing even the latter.

Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in addition to this falsification (b) the lead has been fucked up by source twisting. (c)Some idiot who did read the Vanity Fair article plunked in a dubious tag which signals only the source wasn't read, or if read the content disliked, and the tag was tactically placed to insinuate that the text was improbable, which it isn't. Could editors stop manipulating sources please.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoting a single soldier sure seems like undue weight for a nobody. There are higher established sources for the issue of militants wearing civilian clothing and no one made a story out of the night vision thing, which anyone could complain about for a myriad of reasons. In short, better leave the whole thing out. @Nishidani, anecdotal samples are not plastering confirmation. In contrast with your anecdotal soapbox, the Israeli Defense Forces are proven as the most humane force in the middle east, there's plenty of soldiers and IDF analysts that have confirmed that policy, including (insert a few hundred names here). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote (aren't grammar, parsing taught in school any more?) Avi's comment was confirmed as policy in the subsequent text, with due reference to a scholar, which means it is 'exemplary' not idiosyncratic, hence wp-undue claims are ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Regarding the direct quote by Avi about "The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. If this means to kill civilians, then OK." etc. Personally I do not see much difference between the direct quote and the current quote stating that the priority for protecting soldiers is higher than protecting civilians. If you feel that the quote instead of the general "policy" should be used instead, I am open to it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(a)"The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. If this means to kill civilians, then OK."

Meaning,if caring for our soldiers' safety means killing Palestinian citizens that's fine.

(b)the priority for protecting soldiers is higher than protecting civilians

Meaning, we have two priorities, protecting our soldiers and protecting civilians: the former takes precedence over the latter.

There is a world of difference. (a) means you can kill the 'other's' citizens to ensure the safety of Israeli soldiers (b) means you care for the safety of both, but your own are more important than the others (no mention that you can kill with a good conscience civilians to save soldiers' lives). Yaron Ezrahi says the deaths of IDF soldiers has huge political impact in Israel, that of Palestinian citizens none, so it's not a 'political issue' if Palestinian civilians are killed to save soldiers' lives. (confirming (a). This is simple construal of prose, and can be verified by reading all remarks Avi made in that reportage.

I think the simplest solution is to give the whole quote, rather than paraphrase, which seems to generate controversy. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani, the connection between this anecdotal soldier and scholar analysis is synthesis of unconnected sources. It makes for an absurdity, where wiki-editors can forage for "confirming" (read: plastering!) anecdotal accounts and include them at will in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic value. Others might forage for "disproving" anecdotal accounts, which would make for ridiculousness all around. A value should stick to the main scholar perspectives and not allude to bone collection. Also, Grammar and recent use of 'ridiculous' if fantastic. Let's keep it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Reread the above. Synthesis is not a synonym for synopsis, here of consecutive sentences. There is almost no scholarly analysis in this article. It's based on journalistic reports written to make a deadline. By 'alluding to bone collection' I figure you mean noting in passing that people were killed, something you think 'unscholarly'.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: The current interpretation (night goggles make it hard to distinguish civilians from militants, civilian clothes add some confusion) is as valid as another (civilian clothes make it hard to distinguish civilian from militants, they are all green men in the night vision goggles). It is not up to us to decide which of them the author meant. The way it is phrased as the moment, it is OR. I suggest removing the mention of the night goggles, because the article names only the clothes as a reason for confusion. Perhaps this quote doesn't belong here at all, but in the alleged war crimes, as evidence for violation of International_humanitarian_law#Principle_of_distinction WarKosign (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Avi's Merkava tank at Shuja'iyya 'Avi’s 'usually enters in the night, he said, and eliminates any perceived threat in their path with a barrage of artillery shells.' That is the context of his remark about green goggles. He is saying openly goggles make distinguishing who among the green figures is Hamas and who civilian, and perceived threats are eliminated by just shelling. I only introduces the goggles because it cuts reasonable slack for errors by tank commanders. The important point is missed, and it is in the direct quote I made. What has happened is that the quote is suppressed, and we fuss over goggles and obscure by paraphrase. The answer is simply to write.

One Golani Brigade soldier, in the aftermath of the Battle of Shujaìiyya, commented that “The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. . .If this means to kill civilians, then OK.”

Leave the reader to figure it out.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani? I don't get this anecdote? Here's a clearly! better!!! anecdote: "I believe that on the basis of everything that I've seen, that everything the IDF does to protect civilians and to stop the death of innocent civilians is a great deal more than any other army, and it's more than the British and the American armies." - former commander of the British armed forces in Afghanistan.[3] Certainly, a scholar whose views come before that of a common Golani fighter. The anecdotal quote by a nobody soldier, presented to make the IDF look bad is fantastic editing (read: plastering confirmation) pattern. More soapbox, not opinions stated by people of real evaluative position???, is what makes perfect editing patterns... ? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Avi was in the battle zone: his comment is relevant (not objective, but based on his experience), Richard Kemp wasn't and yet is routinely cited on now three occasions (2008, 2012, 2014) for making the same mechanical general assessment that Israel's purity of arms excels all other armies in the history of warfare, in the face of the statistics provided by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem. His comment is subjective, with no basis in direct experience. That is why the former is relevant, the latter not.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Kemp is a joke source, he is trotted out by pro Israeli supporters all the time even though all the evidence against what he says about the IDF is overwhelming.I would prefer to take a statement from someone who was actually there than Kemp anyday of the week. GGranddad (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I do not see any argument as to why you think the 2nd statement is there, if it is not related to the first. Why would someone mention goggles suddenly in the middle of an article? It is not related to anything else that I can see. If you can give me some explanation of why the 2nd sentence is there, I will revert my edit while we discuss. Kingsindian (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: It could be some kind of poetic filler. "When dressed in civilian clothes, all the people look the same. They are all little green figures in the night vision goggles". I believe that per WP:BURDEN it is not up to me to prove that the night goggles are not the reason for the confusion. We agreed that the source does not explicitly say that. I agree with above sentiments that this whole quote is undue weight - with all due respect to the golani soldier Avi, there are better authorities on the subject of IDF policies. WarKosign (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'IDF policies' are what a defence organization puts out as its public set of principles, and, as with any government or military 'position' is for public consumption and justification. It is not intrinsically 'more relevant' or 'more authoritative'. What soldiers on the frontline say is taken by all historians as crucial for any narrative of events. Try to write a history of any conflict in terms of how the combatant nations's government press releases, recycled in newspapers, report events, and you'll get laughed at in any seminar.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

I am afraid poetic filler is not persuasive at all. One should not be pedantic and lose all common sense. I see no justification at all for the 2nd statement unless it is meant to show difficulty in distinguishing civilians and combatatns.
As to your point about using the soldier Avi, it is not just him: "Many soldiers and IDF analysts have confirmed this policy, including Yaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University." As to the quote itself, I have not yet made up my mind about how to present it. Kingsindian (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, the quote is clearly (read: by common sense) undue and it appears this single? source is given undue weight. A simple review this presented source, shows this article presents a single perspective while others clearly exist as well. Writers nowadays are not impartial and if the writer cannot present the full image, it is only common sense for all editors to remember Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and include other mainstream views, disregarded by this plaster confirmation article, as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, have you read the article? I gave it a look and it is not one sided. Wht's the focus point on Avi rather than the actual analysis and reports on how sides treat the civilian issue? (read: both sides) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have avoided replying to you because you are talking about some other issue. My replies to WarKosign did not talk about undue-ness of the quote, it had to do with whether it was WP:OR to combine the two sentences in my first edit, right at the top of this section. Hope this helps. Kingsindian (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The quote by this nobody is undue so it is a pointless debate. Here's a much higher-value perspective: [4] Add it on top of the other scholars. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The attempt being made here is to game the text by discrediting a perfectly reasonable source. On human shields we have:'Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri specifically called up Gaza civilians on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV 8 July 2014 to volunteer in effect as human shields, in adopting the policy of the "Jihad-fighting people' highlighted. Fine. It conflicts with what many independent organizations say, and what Gazans say, but it is part of the record. What Avi says may conflict with the IDF official position, but it is endorsed by a scholar. That is why it is included. Attempts to argue only IDF official positions (propaganda) are relevant, and must cancel out why IDF soldiers report, are intrinsically silly. As noted above, wars are not described by restating official government press-releases or theoretical positions.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I reworded the sentence so civilian clothes are mentioned as a reason for confusion and the night vision goggles are mentioned as well, just as in the original article. WarKosign (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I need further explanation. Where is "The attempt being made here is to game the text" coming from? As for the immaculate, indispensable "Avi" (might not even be his real name) -- common sense is that he is an anecdotal nobody with a dislike for his night goggles not also being a mind-reading device (read: that'll be the coolest equipment eva!!1). Seriously though, are there any other mentions of night goggles that this should be considered encyclopedic? I appreciate the effort but what the added value? There's so many things in an urban battle field to obstruct view. For instance, a canopy was much more notable and not mentioned by a nobody but by a plethora of news outlets refurbishing this video/article: [5] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, could you please add a note about the canopy to the article? It certainly had a LOT of exposure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding two paragraphs in the background section

@Erictheenquirer: I have reverted your good-faith edit here. The consensus reached was to keep the background focused on events directly leading to the conflict. The killings near Ofer prison are not directly connected to the kidnapping of the three teenagers, and some people speculating about this is not enough.

Regarding the killing of Mohammed Abu-Khdeir, that is already mentioned in the paragraph and has its own article. This and the subsequent rioting, which is not directly connected to the conflict, is not necessary and WP:UNDUE.

@Erictheenquirer:We can certainly discuss whether the stuff you have added belongs in this section, but it needs to be condensed hugely, if at all it belongs. Kingsindian (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Your revert is very significant because with it you have provided more than sufficient justification as to why Wiki needs a separate 2014 article to illustrate the tension and conflict build-up towards Operation Cast Lead. I need to ask you this very directly. What in fact DID start Operation Protective Edge? The official Israeli version is that it was triggered by the barrage of rockets from Gaza on 7 July 2014. So, why are the following in the Background given your definition of the need to keep "the background focused on events directly leading to the conflict"; in other words, what did any of the following have to do DIRECTLY (please note) with OPE? In what way are they too not speculatively linked to OPE given the official Israeli government position:

Ariel Sharon withdrawing from Gaza
Hamas winning the 2006 elections
The disruption by Israel and the USA of the democratic right to govern
The economic and physical damage to Gaza
First Hamas–Fatah reconciliation (2011)
The November 2012 ceasefire agreement
Ceasefire violations in 2012/2013
The continuing Israeli embargo on Gaza in violation of that agreement
The rocket attacks during the first 5 months of 2014
The second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation
The kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers
The immolation of a Palestinian teenager
The six rockets from Gaza in six weeks
The assassination of Khan Younis
[the 7 July 2014 Gaza rocket fire DOES fit your criterion - it is in fact the only one]

@Kingsindian:The second issue with your revert: It brings you into direct conflict with Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict where it clearly states - "For events pertaining to the conflict which occurred before 8 July 2014, see Background of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". You have now rendered that invalid. This is all getting distinctly messy and one-sided.

Thirdly, you have deleted the Abu Khdeir murder by immolation completely out of the "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" and by implication, also out of any relation to Operation Protective Edge. I refer to this as a further case of one-sidedness, pointing out that by far the largest section of the Background is dedicated to a (highly detailed) account of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers = two cases of Palestinian teenager murders erased from background; one case of Israeli teenager murders --> mega-exposure. I trust you see where this is all going, perhaps inadvertently. If so, it needs urgent addressing.

I believe that there is now enough evidence, given the various Talk sections here, to show that the 2014 Conflict 'sensu stricto' [as opposed to the Gaza War (2014) or its sub-set, Operation Protective Edge] is being manipulated to the detriment of a balanced view, with a clear aim to give overwhelming emphasis to the pro-Israeli position, and to suppress any justification for Palestinian response, or at best, to have such justification events boxed into isolated pages (yet incomplete) where their cumulative and interlinked effect is removed from Wiki view, while retaining the Israeli position in collective visible prominence. I am watching this very closely and will educate my n00bie self on the Wiki options for formal objection to this biased tilting of the playing field.

Apologies - unsigned Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Please see WP:BRD. A revert does not necessarily mean that one disagrees with the edit wholesale. It is simply a device made for discussion. Coming to your points.

It is not up to me to decide what is or isn't related to the conflict. I am guided in the background section based on these sources: Mouin Rabbani, Nathan Thrall, David C Hendrickson, J J Goldberg and the Guardian editorial. None of them mention the killings near Ofer prison and there seems to be no connection that I can see (or more to the point, you have demonstrated) with OPE.
Secondly, I accept your point about the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir given only one line, while the other killing is given a huge paragraph. It have reinstated some of it. (you could also have done it). Note that most of the paragraph is not about the details of the murder of the three teenagers, but about the reaction to it
As to whether Wiki is being manipulated to favour one side or not, that is of course your opinion and I cannot do much about it, except to ask you to look at my various contributions as a whole and see if you still find such a pattern. Kingsindian (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer:I do not imply that it was you who created the "2014 Conflict" in its current form. I observe that it is skewed in terms of contributions to tension, and I trust that we do not have to stoop to needing to demonstrate that tension leads to conflict. Still, presuming that the move will ultimately take place, does that mean that I can remove all of the entries that are not directly linked to OPE as causative agents? If so, what we are left with are likely to be: The Israeli opposition to the unification government, the Israeli teenager kidnappings, the July 2014 rocket fire on Israel from Gaza; and on the other hand the prior Israeli attacks on Gaza; the Abu Khdeir immolation, the Tariq Khdeir beating, the detentions without charge or trial by Israel, and the clamp-downs and demolition by Israel in Palestinian territory. So where does the rest go? I made a list and there has been no response. Where do the 'Nakba day' killings fit in? Where they not a cause of tension increase; part of the lead-up to 7 July? Where does the continued embargo fit in; a total reneging by Israel of the 2012 ceasefire agreement? It is not a direct cause of OPE, but I know that there are piles of evidence that that was at the forefront of Gazan grievances. What about the rest on the list? What about the fishing restrictions and the injuries to fisherman. They has zero to do with the fomenting of fury before 7 July? Do they all simply slip between the cracks as being irrelevant because the Israelis say they launched OPE because of the tunnels and the rockets? No thank you!!!

What about the precedents in Wiki for "lead-up" to war articles? And where are we on the "move" petition? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:The above was meant to be addressed to you. Apologies for any confusion. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: As I mentioned already, it is not up to me to make the determination as to what is, or what isn't related to the conflict. That would be WP:OR. I have listed the sources used in the background section in my reply to you above. You can take a look at them and see if some things which are mentioned, should not be mentioned. Kingsindian (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As to the move review, you can find the discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for update

Many important events had happened, can someone update? --84.108.204.8 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey in the infobox

Someone keeps adding these countries. Military infoboxes are for combat support only (not "financial support") and it is undue to have them listed. This is also a clear misrepresentation of sources because Egypt doesn't support anyone in this conflict and the fact that it helped broker a ceasefire more than once should be taken into consideration. Most of the sources say that Egypt is "indifferent" towards the Palestinians (which I fail to see as support for Israel) because the government opposes Hamas. But so does Mahmoud Abbas and many other Arab leaders. For example, the context of this article from The Guardian is completely unrelated to the title "Egypt’s decision to side with Israel has cost Gaza dear" and doesn't prove anything about any Egyptian support for Israel. The destruction of tunnels is merely related to Egypt's current insurgency and crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing else. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Spies

Currently, there's at least 40 "spies" executed by Hamas. Is this information in the article? http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=722518 (recent 18+) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Indeed this is present in the Palestinian casualties section. It is too disjointed and sprawling though. Thanks for bringing the source to our attention. Kingsindian (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted in the casualties section. Yes. It should. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: :@Kingsindian: Any reason why the "spies" killed by Hamas wouldn't go the Israeli side of the casualty list. They are said to be supports of that side, right?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe they should be put under Palestinian, though in a separate subsection. If you look at B'Tselem reports, for example, they have a separate category for this kind of thing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there other examples on Wikipedia where 50+ "spies" and protesters are executed on the streets? It makes sense to try and uphold a standard. If we don't have other examples, it seems more logical not to assume anything, and go with what we know for sure --- that they were Palestinians. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The classic blood libel - Monica Awad for Al-Jazeera

Monica Awad is mentioned for the classic 'Jews intentionally kill children' blood libel on the civilian casualties section. I am wondering what makes her stand out of all the others who interviewed on Al-Jazeera, saying pretty much the same (lord knows, there's plenty of antisemites to go around). On point, Al-Jazeera should be mentioned as a hub for these types of disgusting plastering of antisemitic "opinions". Sources which are generic (ynet) and do not mention the age-old allegation should be removed from the citation. And, a counter view should be noted as well. e.g. Ami Ayalon here [6]. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We have to add all relevant reliable views, per WP NPOV, even if we do not agree with them. This goes for Awad as well.--Tritomex (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While not reliable, her position makes her more notable than an anecdotal nobody. Still, many others went on al-Jazeera and PressTV to read their antisemitic paslms about Jews' "slaughter of children" -- e.g. Osama Hamdan here: [7]. Hamas' spokesperson should be mentioned alongside her. Also, the opposing (read: the truth based) view (Ami Ayalon and others), should be given a place as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think, Osama Hamdan as a highly positioned Hamas officer claim should be mentioned, but not alongside Awad, and not in that section. The Israeli reply to Awad can be mentioned in the same section.--Tritomex (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As easy as it may be to see someone's comment that 'Jews intentionally kill children' as being anti-semitic or blood libel it should only go in the section on the rise of anti-semitism if someone else mentions it as being an example of anti-semitism. In fact, the current section seems to lack any mention of Press TV or Al Jazeera being anti-semitic media so those POV are welcome if they can be properly cited.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Awad is not notable enough to merit mention as using anti-semitic style slander. Hamdan, though, got his ass served to him on CNN -- and responded with an array of lies and obfuscations. Here's a source: [8] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Review

[Created from suggestion in the lead "Requested Move" article] As indicated in Talk:"Requested Move" and in Talk:"POV Tag Needed for Article Lead" this article is being considered for a move to Gaza War (2014). I am not against such a move and title change. It is clearly a world-shattering event. However, the move and the suggested new title of "Gaza War (2014)" creates a topic that is not all-encompassing of the 2014 Israel-Palestine conflict.

But this brings with it a potentially grave problem. According to Talk discussions to date, the Gaza War (2014) article resulting from the move will be more specific than (and in fact a subset of) "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict". This means that a number of 2014 events may no longer have a home without a "2014 Conflict" article, since the build-ups of tensions and the outbreaks of conflicts or continuing conflict issues that cannot be directly assigned as causes of the War with WP:RS, will disappear from Wiki content and not just from the article. It is obvious from past edit history that, even with the current 2014 Conflict title, any contribution that illustrates the build-up of 2014 Israel-Palestine tension but has not been directly related to Operation Protective Edge, is subject to removal. Examples are the 2014 continued Gaza blockade by Israel, the restrictions by Israel on Gaza fishing rights, the attacks by Israel on Gaza, the executions of Palestinian leaders, the continued settler violence, etc. With the change in title it is reasonable to expect that even more will be excised.

I therefore conclude that there are two options:

To create a second article on the cause-and-effect chain of conflict (preferably in a time sequence), which will contain the Gaza War (2014) in summary form (since it is a sub-set of the 2014 conflicts) and have a background that starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire Agreement and ends with 2013, or
To give Gaza War (2014) ample leeway to have detailed 'Background' and/or 'Precursor events and On-going Conflicts' sections which only have to demonstrate the build-up of tension, and not necessarily be sourced as a specific contribution to the War with WP:RS

Should a solution to a full description of the 2014 cause-and-effect chain of tensions along these lines not be implementable, then I would not support the move because it will distort the historical record, and to request that the current title be fully respected. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There may not be a "cause-and-effect" chain that led to this war, not that we can discern, anyway. I don't think "the historical record" would be distorted by properly focusing this article on the actual war itself, without the "c-a-e" thing. That's a bit of an over-generalization. Hires an editor (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Perhaps your own envisaged contribution fits here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Many thanks for pointing out the precedents for other years. Indeed my envisaged article can go there, but only its summary. As you can see, those previous years had a main article and I cannot think of a better one that "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflicts". Thanks you for pointing this out. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:I regret that I couldn't disagree more with your implication that wars start out of the blue. That YOU cannot discern a chain-of-events leading to them is interesting but inconclusive, and should not prevent any other editor from offering detail to the contrary. That you don't "think" that the record would be distorted by focussing just on the war and not also providing the precursor events is obviously a POV. I "think" otherwise but I am furthermore prepared (and fully intend to) to substantiate my "think" by providing full detail in support of my view and to see data offered to the contrary. Selective memory or cherry-picking are not one of my favourite routes to a full historical appreciation - and I hope that I am correct in presuming that that is the objective of such a Wiki article, and not a one-sided surgical excision of anything that does not promote a favoured result.Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I would ask that if you disagree, you be careful to be civil about it. I certainly don't appreciate that you're accusing me of being clueless ("YOU cannot discern"), nor that I'm pushing a POV here, when really, I'd like to limit the scope of the article, and so far the events leading up to the war are in dispute, and undecided upon. Too many different sources say too many different things regarding why Israel decided to invade at the time that it did. Correlation does not imply causation - this is why I say it's difficult to know. I realize that for other wars it's easy to figure things out, but this particular war it's not the case. I also object to the way you seem to discredit "thinking" with scare quotes. Your sarcasm and arrogance are insulting, and no one needs that. I don't have an opinion about this except that it accurately reflect reality, and this topic finds itself very clouded as it relates to reality, since the various sides/factions/actors/commentators/observers feel so strongly about it, and have different and opposing agendas. Hires an editor (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Admonishments accepted.

Back to process and content. I agree that the facts as to the origin of OPE are cloudy. I also agree that there are many issues and events which may have led to an escalation of tensions and conflict but which cannot be attributed WP:RS to be direct causes of OPE without challenge. But that editorial dilemma is nothing new to Wiki. Some comparable Wiki articles contain such chains-of-events (without direct causative links to the main offensive) within the text of the main article - examples: the Tet Offensive; Operation Desert Storm; United States invasion of Panama; Operation Cast Lead; Yom Kippur War. Others have separate articles concerning the lead-up to major conflicts such as Origins of the Six-Day War; Lead-up to the Iraq War; Events leading to the Falklands War; Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Precursor 'events and issues' are therefore a well-established Wiki precedent, demonstrating that the choice between the options (within or separate) is a question of preference and not of Wiki-validity.

Additionally: Inconsistency 1 - The fact is that the title of the article still is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", and that is far more ample that just the bare operation itself. Yet many of my contributions under the actual title have been reverted because they are not specific to OPE, even though they were specific to '2014 Conflict". Hence my frustration and snapping. This anomaly in the form of an existing title that does not reflect what some 'reverting' editors consider the piece should be titled (but is not) is, to say the least, disruptive as we have seen.

Inconsistency 2 - There are certain precursor events which ARE currently in the "2014 Conflicts" article, even though there are also disputes regarding the directness of their contribution. A classic case is the allowance in text of one out of three sets of Teenager killings during the precursor period, with the other two being absent. In strictly rejecting events whose contribution to OPE are not unanimous could mean that there can be only one precursor event to OPE, namely the dramatic increase in rocket fire from Gaza on 7 July. In ruling out earlier events whose direct link to OPE are disputed, we would therefore be obliged to leave out the IDF strike on Gaza of 6 July because it cannot be directly related to OPE, but only to the increase in rocket attacks earlier on the day of OPE initiation. Given this dilemma and the Wiki precedents previously noted, my conclusion was that 2 articles would be warranted: One would keep OPE confined and detailed with specifics, as you suggested, and the other could be "Lead-up to the Gaza War (2014)" or "Origins of Operation Protective Edge", or "2014 Israel-Gaza tension escalation" or .. etc. I am personally amenable to either option, although I have a preference for an (eventual) Operation Protective Edge that is not too bloated.

@Hires an editor: @Kingsindian: @Nishidani: Any comments, particularly on Wiki precedents for wars both 'large' and 'small', as support for a "Lead-up" article, or is the concept accepted? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to be careful of forking for POV reasons. I'm not totally rejecting the idea a fork, since there are forks all over the place regarding this subject. I'm just saying we need to be careful. It's difficult to reach consensus, I understand. I think we might want to editorialize (which I don't think it totally violates WP:SYNTH) to say there were events before the war started, but that few and/or none can be considered directly attributable to the start of the war. We know what the stated aims of the war are, based on statements made by both sides, but what actually prompted Israel to invade at the exact time it did will likely remain in doubt (only because sources don't seem to agree). I don't agree that an OPE article is warranted, since that is really the Israeli name of the war, and the examples you cited earlier all relate to place naming the conflicts; additionally I believe that there is further discussion on this topic elsewhere on this talk page (or in archives) that relates to proper naming not including one side's name for the operation. Neither could I easily find a WP guideline for a naming convention regarding the name of military conflicts of various stripes (what constitutes a skirmish/conflict/war? And at what point do they get names?). So, having said all of that, I think "Gaza War (2014)" should be the title of the article, and that should help narrow the scope, and prevent the background section from getting too long, and make the article be about something specific, and remove questions of what is this article about...

And by the way, we may want to request more editors to get involved in this page, since I was seeing maybe 4 people making regular contributions, and I think that can lead to some undesirable outcomes as it relates to bias. Hires an editor (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Many thanks for that positive explanation. I read the definition of forking and I believe there is zero probability of that happening in this case. From the Move debate, I am fully supportive of the move and the title Gaza War (2014). I would suggest that there would be little disagreement that the Gaza War (2014) started on 6 July with the IAF air strikes on Gaza, followed by the Gaza rocket barrage and then OPE. The article that I am proposing ENDS on 6 July, and will almost certainly start on 25th November 2012 = no possibility of forking. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War 2014 works as a more neutral alternative to the arguably loaded name Operation Protective Edge. However:

How can one say if it is a war or not ? There is warfare going on, but isn't a formal declaration by either side, and least retroactively, needed to call it a war ? Maybe we can use some other term between war and conflict, such as fighting or hostilities until this is officially a war ?
Lacking a formal declaration of war, who said that 6th of July is the start date ? Does it not constitute OR to pick a date arbitrarily ? Arguably, there were events before the 6th that are as relevant. One point I see is July 8, when Operation Brother's Keeper ended and OPE began. Since there is no dedicated article for OBK, it can be bundled in as well - then the starting point would be the kidnapping of the teenagers. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not have to declare war for it to be classed as a war.Gaza War 2014 is a good neutral title.GGranddad (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:GGranddad - also, the Wiki precedents are copious. Regarding the "start", both in the Talk sections on this page and in Wikipedia:Move review there is consensus that the moved/renamed article should be directly related to the War. It has been repeatedly emphasised that if conflicts that are not part of the War are included, it opens the door once again to circuitous debate as to which "non-attacks" might be "more pertinent" that others with the risk of the Tyranny of the majority (sensu Olson). The first actual 'noteworthy' attack as such occurred on 6 July. This does not mean that I disagree with you that there are pre-cursor issues that should be recorded in Wiki, just not in this article, and particularly not in detail. There are ample Wiki precedents for this type of a redirect to a "Main" article for the Background summary. And I would suggest that such a summary should indeed correspond to any separate article, but in much abbreviated style. Such precedents in Wiki are provided on this Talk page and in Wikipedia:Move review. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

55 total Palestinians have reportedly been executed by Hamas

75+ if you count the Palestinian protesters being killed. If this reaches a certain number, should this get it's own section under Palestinian casualties? Maybe be called "Palestinians killed by Palestinians (or Hamas)" Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: There is a section, feel free to add relevant information backed by reliable sources. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for at least 3 separate waves of executions and another killing of 20 demonstrators in july and early august.--Tritomex (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, be kind and add it to the casualties template at the head of the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It sums up to 88 or 113 people:

20 + 30 on July 30
2 "a few days later"
3+18 on August 21 and 22
4 more on August 23
Strangling Necks" on 21 and 22nd of August - 25. Is it the same as 3+18 above ?
1 - hamas co-founder
Hamas's rockets falling short - at least 10

Currently the casualties table contains a note with a link to this section. I would prefer to add the number of casualties there, but it probably goes above permitted by WP:CALC. WarKosign (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This kind of thing would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The information comes from different sources, and is of varying quality and reliability. One cannot simply lump them all together. There needs to be a reliable, secondary source doing the calculation, not editors. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gazan tunnels

I've decided to remove some of the irrelevant sentences from this paragraph. This section has multiple issues which should be resolved. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have replaced the Gazan tunnels section with the lead for the "Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" section using Wikipedia:Transclusion#Partial_transclusion. The problems with this section are longstanding. See discussion here for the basic discussion. Just search "tunnels" in the archives for plenty more discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The section makes sense now. You are doing the energy demanding job of taking care of this article. Thanks.Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas leaders in hospitals

@Tritomex: Re your edit. This Washington Post report has already been discussed before. It only talks about Hamas political leaders visiting hospitals, which does not make them a military target. Putting this in the hospital section is WP:OR. There is no connection made that this makes the targeting of hospitals legal. The claim that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as a militant base comes from an Israeli official and it should be properly attributed. There is plenty of testimony to the contrary, if such a statement is to be included. You can't just include every claim like this. Kingsindian (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I gave precise quote from Washington Post under quotation marks. The Washington Post explicitly says that the "Shifa has become a de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." So this is is exact quotation and not anything even close to original reaserch.--Tritomex (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I did not fault the edit based on whether you quoted the Post accurately. I asked what relevance does it have to the section on attacks on hospitals. Unless you can find a reliable source to document the connection, it is WP:OR, in my opinion. Or call it WP:UNDUE or whatever. Just that there is no connection at all to the section. (added) Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Well your claim that "it only talks only about political leaders" needs some source. If you have a source that this refer only to "visiting Hamas leaders", which is totally contradictory to what the Washington Post says, I will remove this quote. Second using hospitals as "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is violation of international law, weather they are military or political leaders in question. Third I properly attributed the claim to Washington Post, which means I did not presented it as an established fact.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I checked it again, I placed this quote in the section detialing aleged violations of international law in Medical facilities. Having headquarter in hospital is considered a serious violation of international law, concerning political or military leaders.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Excuse me, the Washington Post article itself only names Hamas politicians vising the hospitals. "The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." It does not state anywhere that Hamas militants have been inside the hospital. I do not need to provide a source, it is your own source which says this. Secondly, the claim that using hospitals is "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is a violation of international law needs to be established by a WP:RS, not asserted by Wikipedia editors. Third, there is no third, since I did not raise the point at all. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Thanks for the revert while we discuss. Unfortunately the statement left is problematic as well. The article quotes a French newspaper writer who claims to have seen combatants interrogating journalists, though the article was removed afterwards at the request of the author. This kind of evidence is not to be given too much weight. If it is presented, the contrary view, that these allegations are not substantiated should also be presented, and the statement of the director of the hospital quoted. Here are two sources: this and this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The report on Hamas interrogation in Shifa, was covered by plenty of sources, all over world, so it has enough weight. If Hamas, or the hospital management responded to this particular incident, I agree that this should be included too.--Tritomex (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

Can we please keep some perspective on this section? Nobody claims that there was no intimidation whatsoever by Hamas. But please, think a bit about what you're doing. The killing of 8 journalists gets one line in this section, while the intimidation of journalists goes on and on and on and on and on, taking up a full page. Please have some perspective. In my view the intimidation part needs to be drastically condensed, with pro- and con- presented, to one paragraph, not more than half the total section at most. I have discussed this at length on this page before, but people keep insisting on adding more and more stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be objectively dealt with also by creating a subpage for attacks on journalists, not by selectively removing some of many attacks, (which allegedly included even physical torture) on journalist during this war. Also there are similar problems with other sections. Third, if 8 journalist were killed, this needs to be written in the article too (as it is not), expanded, with reliable sources (which is missing). Currently there is just one source, the Maan agency, documenting the death of 3 journalists of Hamas Al Aqsa TV. The 3 foreign journalist who died while Hamas operatives tried to defuse the unexploded Israeli bomb, did not die as a result of attacks on journalist, so this does not belong to this section.--Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Al Aqsa TV is designated by USA as a "terrorist entity" According to US Al Aqsa TV is part of "terrorist infrastructure" and "USA will not distinguish between a business financed and controlled by a terrorist group, such as Al-Aqsa Television, and the terrorist group itself, .[9] I do not want to take side on this question, but the article must come clear, that there is not a universal understanding that the 3 Al Aqsa TV operatives were just journalists.Tritomex (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Similar labels for Al Aqsa TV, were given by the government of France.[10]

@Tritomex: Of course a section can be made more balanced by a) expanding some things or b) condensing some other things. If you feel that there should be a separate article on "Attacks on journalists", go ahead and create it. Right now, I see this section as taking more space than "rocket attacks on civilians", "destruction of homes" and "infrastructure" sections combined. This is wildly WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, condensing this section is correct option. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex:So what's that got to do with the price of fish? Al-Aqsa tv is a propaganda channel for Hamas, just as Arutz Sheva is for settlers, or the New York Times for middle class morons who want to feel comfortable about bad things their government does. It is absolutely pointless trying to use sources to make some idiotic statement like the one you propose. What the US might think of al-Aqsa TV is immaterial and undue. It does not recruit, train and engage in terrorist acts.Who gives a fuck what that government happens to say it thinks (it doesn't) of an hardly notable Arab tv channel?, itself a state that defies international law, consistently subverts other states, has launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, of the 248 conflicts since that date, has been formally condemned for its violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty and has [Legality of the Iraq War|invaded a foreign state without any other pretext than a series of suspicions, known to have been fabricated]. Even its defenders treat the argument that its behaviour fits its own definition of a rogue state seriously. Not for that do we rush round plastering 'rogue state' refs for every article on the US. As A.B. Yehoshua says, calling Hamas a 'terrorist organization' is pointless. Such attribution of absurdly subjective external 'state' opinions serve only to insinuate trivial nonsense.

If you want to fuss up a full length article, go ahead, and take care to mention both sides. I.e., numerous attacks on journalists and artists protesting the war in Israel. Israel was condemned by Human Rights Watch for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian journalists during the 2012 war. Just as Reporters without Borders has complained of attacks on journalists within Gaza this time round, as they complain of Israel's firing at journalists covering the West Bank. Sayed Kashua has people threatening to break his legs or kidnap his children for what he has written recently on the war, so he has broken with the state in whose language he writes so eloquently, and has felt he must expatriate and learn to write in English. Gideon Levy of Haaretz is under 24/7 armed escort because of numerous death threats from Israeli groups for the way he covered the war: his death has already been forecast by an Israeli activist attorney on Facebook. There are dozens of examples, if you really want to push this.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for your views.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, of course is right about the issues, and gives a lot of sources to include in any separate article. However, I want to keep the current section focused on condensing the section in the current article, which is grotesquely bloated. If everyone agrees on that, I will replace the section with a condensed summary, hopefully in a day or so. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, read WP:NPOV and try to edit accordingly. My views sum the sources given and they were provided to intimate to Tritomex that, as Kingsindian suggested, he's only digging a hole for himself if he pursues expansion, since there is a mass of evidence that could be, but that I for one won't add, on Israeli pressures on journalists, and that jumping at a few articles referring to Hamas and journalism to spin a government line while ignoring these would both violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. Lastly, it's often forgotten that this is a global encyclopedia, and that what the US or Canada or others spin is, to billions of people, boring or a sheer hypocritical pretext for the assertion of power interests. Many users have to be reminded of that, because they tend, in their edits, to confuse mainstream information with what a few outlets in interested western countries say. It is not to abuse WP:FORUM to remind editors to drop our provincialism, and read more widely. Meaning here, that Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization by a lot of countries: al-Qaeda expelled the future founders of ISIS because its leaders found them too 'terroristic', and in respect of those two vile organizations, Hamas is, in non-Western terms, quite 'liberal' (Christians live under its sway), as compared to a Western 'ally' like Saudi Arabia. I commend therefore attempts to sum this section up in a few balanced, well sourced lines, that cover complaints about Israel and Hamas equally.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times or Arutz Sheva is not considered by USA and EU, as "terrorist entity" while Al Aqsa TV is considered as such, and the USA officially declared all Al Aqsa TV operatives as "terrorists" This can be seen from official US government sources mentioned above. I do not take sides on the question whether this Al Aqsa TV operatives are journalist or not, for huge part of world they are not considered as such, and this can not be just left out of the article. For the rest I can fully agree with Shrike, this is not the place to discuss unrelated issues. There are relevant articles and sections where such issues could be mentioned. If eventual Israeli attacks on journalist happened during this war, this must be also added to this section as per WP:NPOV if it is not done yet.--Tritomex (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. I condensed it and removed one clearly undue bit about someone being threatened on twitter, and sorted the information into:

one paragraph on journalists' deaths,
one long paragraph on Israel's and others' views that journalists are subject to intimidation,
one paragraph on views that journalists are not subject to intimidation,
one paragraph containing a Hamas spokesperson's comment that it questions journalists, and
one paragraph on Israeli attacks on media stations.

-sche (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs much more condensing, especially removal of individual names (French journalist, FT reporter, RT reporter). Can't go on enumerating all the cases like this. Are we going to list every reporter Haaretz spoke to, or every reporter that was killed? This is not a correct procedure. A general statement about this should be enough. Also the Hamas spokesperson has a very long quote, it should be summarized, saying that they did not like reporters reporting on military or intelligence matters and they interrogated/questioned/told them about it. If someone else wants to do this, they can, otherwise I will do it tomorrow, because of 1RR restriction. Kingsindian (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove the names, especially not the reasons and circumstances of the attacks. This are very important issues. In my view this is now fully WP:NPOV and objective as all events and sides were given equal cc space. Additional changes would make it unbalanced and would require additional chamnges.--Tritomex (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Reasons for not removing the names? As I mentioned already, we can't enumerate all the cases like this. What issues are the names adding? They are all mentioned already (intimidation, threatening of journalists, etc.) Kingsindian (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why not to add specific attacks on journalists. This is the subject of this section. We already went to individual narratives (on less important issues) when we added "Jodi Rudoren, who wrote "every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during [the] war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense.”[384] The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed many foreign journalists and found "all but a few of the journalists deny any such pressure". They said Hamas' intimidation was no worse than they have gotten from the IDF, and said no armed forces would permit reporters to broadcast militarily sensitive information. Furthermore, most reporters seldom saw Hamas fighters, because they fought from concealed locations and in places that were too dangerous to approach." So selective removals are not justified.--Tritomex (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding sources, but due to 1RR i have to wait additional 10 hours to fix it.[11][12] --Tritomex (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the text of the piece which quotes Rudoren since it is behind a paywall, but I would be happy to include instead, a generic statement saying that many people disagree with the FPA assessment. I do not know why the Haaretz report is called "individual narrative". Having a section "Attack on Journalists" does not mean one has to enumerate all the attacks on journalists. Obviously we are not listing all the people Haaretz talked to, or all the Palestinian journalists who are killed, or their circumstances. I have put a draft of the section here. It addresses all the issues raised above but is condensed. Anyone can comment or put it up, or I can put it up tomorrow. Kingsindian (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rudhoren quote without attribution would look even worse than it looks now. Factual and documented attacks on journalists are much more important for this section, than one newspaper point view based on interview with some unnamed journalist. However, my suggestion was to leave this section as it is. --Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have removed the Rudoren quote entirely in my draft. As to your second point, you have got it entirely backwards. The quality of the Haaretz evidence is much higher than the individual cases. If you want to know the scale of intimidation etc. of a population of 700 journalists (being threatened etc.), there are two ways of doing it. One is the Haaretz way, talking to a sample of journalists and asking them what their experience was. All of them reported little or no intimidation. The second way is to look at a self-selected sample of journalists who reported intimidation. Neither is a scientifically precise method, but the first is much better methodologically. It is fine to include the concerns raised by the 2nd group, but it is not legitimate to enumerate all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is not in line with WP:NPOV , and such huge rewriting of entire section needs consensus per Wikipedia rules.

International humanitarian law is not subject of this section. Palestinian media news, is not reliable source regarding the number of journalists killed, especially regarding AL Aqsa TV operatives. Specific attacks on journalist can not be censored. (btw attacks on journalists were not self-selected). The fact that foreign media association condemned some of this attack, does not mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in this section specifically dedicated to this topic, in the same way as other condemnation of attacks by international bodies, does not mean that those attacks shouldn't be mentioned. The death of 3 Italian journalists is unrelated to this section. They did not die as a result of attacks on journalists. The compromise done by -sche has my support.--Tritomex (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The search for consensus is precisely the reason I made a draft and did not edit in the main space. I hardly rewrote the entire section. I only expanded slightly the first paragraph and condensed the last. The killing of the Italian journalist is already present in the current version. If someone wants to make an argument as to why it should be removed, I am open to it. I have removed the "Palestinian News" source because it is not needed. If he wishes, -sche can state his opinion about whether the draft I made is better than the current version. I will wait for 24 hours for people to incorporate anything from my draft which they see fit. If, at that time, I still consider the section unsatisfactory, I will open an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice your draft combines "Israel has bombed Hamas' Al-Aqsa radio and TV stations" and "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" into one paragraph. I'm not sure what the logic of combining those subjects is; I think grouping "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" and "[People say] Hamas intimidates journalists in Gaza", as the article currently does (due to me) makes more sense. I am fine with moving the "Israel has bombed..." paragraph to be above the "Israel has made foreign..." paragraph (indeed, that makes sense, since it puts it next to the other paragraph on journalists being killed), but I think they should be separate paragraphs. (Perhaps "Israel has made foreign..." and "[People say] Hamas intimidates..." should also be separate paragraphs.) I think you did a good job summarizing/condensing the Hamas spokesperson's comments. I'm not sure wholesale removal of the comments by specific journalists is desirable, though I agree that they need to be shortened. There's probably a middle ground between removing them entirely and retaining them intact; I'll take a stab at it in a moment. Have other members of the FPA besides Rudoren (and the unnamed reporters she says she talked to) criticized the FPA's stance? If so, I could see saying "Members of the FPA are divided over the statement regarding Hamas harassment, with one saying the 'narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense'." But if not, then (a) it's not accurate to generalize to "members" plural, and (b) it makes sense to retain Rudoren's name. Your changes to the first paragraph were extensive and I'll give feedback on them in a separate comment. -sche (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having a harder time than I thought I would figuring out how to shorten the comments by specific journalists. I notice that of the three citations which had been given for those comments, one didn't actually contain relevant information, and the other two have been flagged as having POV problems. -sche (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks for the comments.

There is no real logic in the way I combined the waivers. I just wanted to keep all the criticism against one side together. I had initially put the sentence in a paragraph by itself, but it seemed too awkward. It belongs in a paragraph by itself, I think. It is not directly related to intimidation.
Regarding the FPA statement, I just used the title of Haaretz's report: "Foreign press divided over...". The article is behind a paywall and I do not know what details it gives. But the title is indicative of the disagreement with the FPA statement. The quote by Rudoren also emphasises that she has talked to other journalists. We can assume that she is not lying about this.
I will add, though this is not relevant to your points, that the inclusion of this particular FPA statement in this section is disturbingly selective. Just take a look at the list of FPA statements in 2014 here. Every statement except this one is criticizing Israel...yet it is the only one included. There is a specific statement on July 23, probably referring to this Avigdor Lieberman criticized Al-Jazeera, and next day, their offices were hit. The statement refers specifically to "incitement" though it does not name the party, all the examples given deal with Israel.
Regarding the individual journalists. Firstly, my reasoning was that it would simply be WP:UNDUE to talk about individual cases like this, instead of the issues. If we list all the cases of harassment by Hamas, we have to give perhaps 10 times (at least) the space to list all the cases of killings by the other side, given the severity and the number of violations. Secondly, all the issues raised by the individual journalists, namely intimidation, deportation and interrogation, they are all presented. Adding in the individual cases adds nothing at all to the section, except bloat and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping out of this thread for a while; I got distracted in real life. I see that the information has been split into two sections (seems like a good move) and rewritten (looks fine). Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Arab racism

"Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel"

Very prejudicial statement. I'd suggest rewording it to sound less racist. This assumes that some countries have some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. JDiala (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But that is not all. The subsection Talk:"Allegations of UN Bias" is the worst case of bias that I have seen during my (admittedly brief) period as a Wiki contributor. It contains text without references; text written in the passive voice; vague allocations such as "critics" when "Israeli commentators" is a far more specific label; it misquotes references; and when only lesser portions of a reference support the article's bias, the alternative view is not mentioned. Just a few examples are:

Quote: “The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict.” The supplied citation in fact focusses on the anguish of a UNRWA official at the situation in which “the rights of Palestinians – even their children – are wholesale denied”. The only mention of criticism of UNRWA are in uncited third-party references.
The i24 reference is equally appalling, since its lead criticism is based on: “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll … and I don't see that as a crime.” The same point is raised in another citation as a reason to suspect UNRWA’s trustworthiness. Let us not forget that in the 2006 elections Hamas gained 48% of the vote, probably higher in Gaza due to the number of refugees there. Presumably UNRWA would therefore become more ‘trustworthy’ if it started employing discriminatory hiring practices.
Another Asaf Romirowsky piece is quoted as “casting a shadow” over UNRWA, that wording presumably having been chosen because the cited reference uses the word ‘apparently’ to make its most telling point.
If those weren’t enough, the Claudia Rosett references take the cake. UNRWA is guilty of bias against Israel because it provides social services to Gaza and thereby relieves Hamas of the burden of having to do so. No … I am quite serious, the UN agency is suspect because it provides humanitarian aid.

Furthermore, the section is justified in the Operation Protective Edge article by “During the present conflict the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question”. May I be permitted to introduce a section named “Western Media bias” by starting with “During the present conflict the impartiality of mainstream Western media sources have fallen under question”? I suspect that I will be reverted before I can wipe my nose.

I suggest that it is this entire subsection that displays an astonishing bias, and not UNRWA. Unless this hopelessly one-sided bigotry is addressed, plus its existence properly justified, I intend to trash the lot. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it all out. The amount of time spent challenging the bona fides of a group that has provided sustenance to the poor for 60 years, educating, clothing and feeding them, not only in Gaza, is frankly obscene. It's WP:Undue also for the fact that if one wanted, for every googlable criticism of UNWRA one could google up hundreds of criticisms of parties actually engaged in militarily supporting one or the other side, and cram the text with it, spamming this article into impossible limits. These articles should be stringently wooed to the facts of what happened, the background, the outcome, established by fairly good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for 24 hours to see if someone wants to defend the guilty subsection as it is.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read further, and here are some more howlers from the current text and citations:

Next are the missiles discovered at an UNRWA school that was in recess. In detailing UNRWA's 'untrustworthiness' the citation uses words such as 'apparently','presumably' and 'unclear', the Wiki text turning these into supposed fact = rank bad text and/or citation.
Next, the claim that Ocha has been criticised regarding "the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports". The Algemeiner reference provided to support this notes that the sources of the OCHAO data are B’Tselem (an Israeli human rights group established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members), the PCHR (established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists), and Al Mezan (funded by official Dutch, Swiss and Swedish agencies) – "all of which are 'political' NGOs with a less than pristine record on impartiality in Israel-related matters." No mention is made of the fact that the data for Israeli casualties and attacks from Gaza come from the Israeli Security Agency, a 100% Israeli government institution, and that such a source is not required to be subject to any test of 'bias'. This playing-field has a 45º slope.

Forgot to sign Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala, Erictheenquirer, and Nishidani: This has already been brought up here. The whole section needs to be rewritten, at the least or simply dumped. Nobody has yet done so. If you want it to happen, you should be WP:BOLD and do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is well sourced if someone have reliable sources for "western media bias" go ahead and add such section.--Shrike (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: ~~Sourcing~~ The fact that it has sources is not enough. This section was added more than a week ago, as I indicated above, by I.am.a.qwerty. It is fundamentally flawed, and 6(!!) people have noticed its fundamental flaws. The original poster has made no replies, nor has (s)he bothered to improve it. It is a mass of scattershot statements attacking the UN on mostly silly charges, all of which have been answered, and none were seen fit to be included by the original poster. There is a whole article on all the criticisms and their replies, if anyone wanted to add it. Unless the original poster tries to at least attempt to fix some of the problems, it deserves to be junked. Kingsindian (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, you reverted without apparently consulting the page or the earlier section where its inadequacy was noted. It's not our burden to perfume POV crap, - I note you haven't trouble to actually improve it, i.e. do some editing on it- the original editor plunking it in there did a poor job, and the best that can be done for it is for it to be excerpted and placed here to be reworked until a consensual version is worked out. This page is already burnt out with bad material, poor organization, over 400 sources, and close to 200,000 bytes which is three times what a comprehensive well-tuned article usually should aim at. So it is self-evident, severe pruning is required, and Eric did so after gaining the approbation of editors on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: They were editorials written by journalists, and even though Wikipedia is open to reporting different viewpoints, if a particular statement which is made is unsubstantiated, erroneous or unencyclopedic, there is no reason why it ought to be included. JDiala (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: et. al. The section title alleges "subtle anti Arab racism" a claim not substantiated in the discussion. I don't see how those who point to structural biases in the UN (50+ Arab countries, likely to be more sympathetic to Palestinian causes over Israeli ones vs. a sole Jewish state with few allies other than US, Canada, Australia etc.) as subtle anti-racism. You've got no basis to say that a criticism of an organization's structural and procedural design, intended or not, is somehow "racism."

Its an ethnic conflict, the fact that the voting patterns have consistently been all Muslim and Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority is not "racism." I don't see how dropping allegations of racism furthers the development of this article.

You somehow turn the conversation into the reliability of sources criticizing the UN. That should be done under a seperate section. The fact that you combined the two shows you seek to maximize your argument by mixing "racism" and "reliability" in an effort to create a subtext that all critics of the UN are somehow racist. And using such descriptive terms such as "obscene" "POV crap" "hopelessly one-sided bigotry" is an appeal to emotion rather than logic. I say until this discussion can be conducted without polemical manipulation, we keep the text as it or scrap this discussion until editors can think clearly and remain cool headed. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: First of all, the organizational and structural construction of the UN is not of concern. However, suggesting that the racial and religious aspects of the organizational structure are the cause of the structural bias, and that these alleged casual factors are important enough to be considered encyclopedic is another story. That would require justification of the former point, and also justification that the influence of the Arab countries, who are a minority in the UN, overshadows the influence of non-Arab/Muslim countries. Concerning the usage of the term "racism", I don't find it incorrect. The article singled out Arab countries as the source of the alleged UN bias, even though, for example, India, China and Latin America also consistently vote against Israel in general assembly resolutions. Furthermore, certain groups voting for or against something does not imply "structural bias". Every country, other than the ones who abstain from voting, are biased. However, this has nothing to do with their race or religion. If you invoke ethnic background into the discussion as the cause and the source of perceived bias, then that is racial. The statement had racial connotations; it assumes that Arab and Muslim countries possess some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. That claim needed to be substantiated, which was never done.

Also, your assertion that it's an ethnic conflict is irrelevant. There is an ethnic role, yes, but ethnicity plays a role in almost all conflicts other than maybe civil wars. Ethnicity is a social categorization. You just defining various subsets within the human species (Arab, Jew) in such a way that smaller subsets(Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis) are a part of the same larger set (Arab) so you can misleadingly assert things like "Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority" without acknowledging the fact that the small subsets have their own unique ethnic identity independent to that of a supposed pan-Arab identity, and that there is no evidence that being a part of a greater pan-Arab set is the cause of alleged UN bias or preferential treatment of the Palestinian minority in the land of Palestine. If this were the case, why has the "Arab" Egypt country practically abandoned the Gazans now? Why have the Saudis not played a major role in any aspect of the conflict?

Were "white" countries the source of "UN structural bias" for, say, the fact that it permitted the War in Afghanistan because the United States is also predominately white? The degree to which race and ethnicity play a role in this conflict relative to other political or social variables is debatable. Furthermore, the statement also mentioned religion. If Indonesia votes against Israel, a country which has historically had nothing to do with the conflict, is it because it has a structural bias because of its religion? Again, that's an unsubstantiated assertion and claiming that race and religion are the prime motivating factors of certain countries to vote for or against a particular country in the UN is inherently racist and prejudicial. JDiala (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the section has been moved to the talk page while there is an invitation to work on it. It needs a lot of work before it can be classified as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Kingsindian (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The underlying assumption that Arab/Muslim countries are biased against Israel does sound racist (whether or not it is true http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm). How about mentioning that there are 32 UN members that do not recognize Israel ? Is it ok to assume they are biased ? WarKosign (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The site you linked is a partisan source. It does not seem scholarly or WP:Reliable, nor does it have a bibliography to substantiate its assertions. Nevertheless, that is in my view a fair point. You can mention something like "a certain number of countries within the UN do not recognize Israel". Regardless, you still obviously need to prove that these countries, which represent a clear minority relative to the nearly 200 countries within the UN, create some sort of "structural bias". The Goldstone report, for example, was written by a South African self-recognized Zionist. Ban-ki Moon is a Korean. The degree to which the countries which do not recognize Israel affect the UN's reports is most likely negligible. My main point was that there is no need to invoke religion or ethnicity into it. That's all I'm trying to say. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Training manual

The training manual which Israel says was written by Hamas is mentioned in two places in this article (Ctrl-F "manual" and you'll find them). Only in the second place is it mentioned that Hamas has called the manual a forgery. It seems unideal to have two paragraphs in two places about this minor object, and less ideal to include Hamas' response in ~~old~~ only one of those places. -sche (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) typofix 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: You are correct, I added the (chronologically) second mention of the manual without noticing it was already there. Now I unified the two mentions removing duplications. Feel free to copyedit, my English is far from perfect. WarKosign (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And, speaking of English skills that aren't perfect — I just noticed a typo in my original post. :P -sche (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

barnstar for the editor who managed the most devious link on this hopeless article

I've taken it out - mot of the article should be taken out, or hit with an IAF missile, thanks to the sedulous POV pushing, - but this takes the cake [Perfidy|some Hamas operatives dressed in plainclothes] and the night vision goggles made everything look green. Could all editors respect the talk page and not permit shit like this, or dubious IDF posed photos, to sneak in?Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just do your best. After all, getting a NPOV is never perfectly possible so if you're trying to get there then you're way ahead of half the people who have edited/created this page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

IAF missiles are expensive, are you prepared to pay for one ? Qasam rockets are far cheaper. Not sure which article you will hit, though.
The quote by the soldier about the goggles was undue weight, imo. Now it appears there are quotes from two different soldiers, while in the source it's same Avi in both. As for the link - militants dressing up as civilians IS perfidy by definition, and the whole quote actually belongs to the human shields section. WarKosign (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, is that an admission that you made that link, dribbling in a moral judgement to a narrative that must be NPOV? You are obliged not to edit in the interests of a government here, I would remind you. If you think soldiers/militants dressing in civvies is perfidious, I expect in terms of coherence that you will now go and edit all of the articles dealing with the assassination of Palestinians on the West bank by Sayeret Matkal and Yamas, like for example, Abdullah Qawasmeh, the uncle of one of the two thugs who killed the three Israeli teenagers this year, who was gunned down in Hebron, unarmed, by 13 Israeli undercover agents dressed in Palestinian clothes in 2003? What is a standard assassination tactic in the IDF is a perfidious use of human shields in Hamas? You've got a lot of work on your perfidy pushing: there are hundreds of such cases. 'Witnesses said a dozen Israeli troops disguised as Palestinian labourers waited in a van with windows blocked by boxes of diapers and two other vehicles bearing local licence plates, as worshippers left the mosque after Saturday evening prayers. According to local resident Bassam Hassan, Mr. Qawasme “was hit in the leg, ran to the other side of the street, and the Israelis finished him off.” (AFP, DPA, Reuters).' Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: In editing in such a sensitive area, you should never substitute your own judgement. "Perfidy" is a legal term - you are a WP editor. Find a source which says this particular act is perfidy, and add it if you wish. This is the minimum. Of course, as Nishidani says, one can find plenty of perfidy on the other side, which you should consider adding, if one is to follow WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proper place for numbers of rockets fired/destroyed and hamas military claims

Currently this outdated information resides in Israeli casualties section, where it definitely doesn't belong.

Number of rockets fired on Israel could go into impact on residents, but what about rockets destroyed/remaining in posession of Hamas ? Similar statistics of numbers of IDF attacks can also be added. Timeline section or article don't fit since this information is a summary, not time specific. Do we want a new section for military statistics ? WarKosign (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

972mag.com is a blog site

@GGranddad: in your edit you used a blog site as a source.

"+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. Our collective is committed to human rights and freedom of information, and we oppose the occupation. However, +972 Magazine does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda."

This is a very severe case, if it is true surely there are better sources. WarKosign (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree its WP:UNDUE to use such sources.If it was really important we would see it in mainstream media--Shrike (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a better source. The Israeli response should be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another good reason that such sources are better as it at least tries to give all sides of the story including some doubts about the truthfulness of the report.--Shrike (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources there for that story and both are good.One is Defense for Children International and NGO and the other one is +927, funny how you do not mention the other source. I could have just put it in with one source but I used two.GGranddad (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what the general opinion here is about using 972mag. The reason Israeli response was not included in that piece is given there +972 has approached the IDF spokesperson for comment, which will be added once it is received. As far as I can see, nothing in the piece is factually untrue. The NYT article is quite recent, a day or so old. Kingsindian (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Usually, one should not use WP:PRIMARY sources for reporting incidents. So DCI is not a good source by itself. Using secondary source is the preferred practice on WP, to establish notability. Attributing the claim to DCI, as you did, is good when using primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the NYT report DCI are not the primary source for this, it was reported on Palestine today website and picked up by another NGO from Geneva,Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights.Their report is here [13]. It includes another couple of cases as well.GGranddad (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are WP:SPS are not acceptable as WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not quite. Your eye for 'policy' is limited to a dislike slant, Shrike, for you have ignored numerous uses of sources in the article that might be queried on the same grounds (predominantly Israeli fringe sources). Just noting that it has a blog in the link address means nothing. This an numerous other articles created recently refer to blogs (JPost,The Times of Israel, Haaretz, etc.

Not to speak of numerous things that anyone might contest as RS

http://www.voanews.com/content/hamas-says-no-deal-with-israel-on-extending-truce/2406827.html
http://www.debka.com/article/24078/printversion (certainly 'ratshit' compared to +972.)
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/17954/idf-strikes-major-blow-gaza-terrorists-rockets-reach-israels-nort
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/gaza-missiles-reach-zichron-yaakov-in-northern-israel/2014/07/09 (inferior in reportage to +972
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182702 (Arutz Sheva, a settler tabloid not known to be reliable except for hysteria)
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/16/israel-warns-gazans-to-leave-homes-as-hamas-urged-to-accept-cease-fire (notoriously trash-pushing spinner )

It depends therefore. I used to believe that, but now believe there are 'blogs', subjective opinionizing sites, and informal groups of journalists of considerable competence, and a career background in mainstream journalism, who provide much of what the mainstream misses. +972 certainly gives opinions, but it also is an extremely useful reference for summaries of Israel press information not translated into English. Mondoweiss for example has had very good coverage at times of key events unreported and intelligent editing should look to each case, and not wave a general rule.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Both +972 and Mondoweiss are highly partisan activist sources that have and should be avoided. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about all the Jewish websites used on here by pro Israeli supporters.Are we going to get rid of all of them as well? Plus fake terrorist info sites?GGranddad (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

+972 journalists have had their work published in many main stream media outlets including NYT, Washington Post,The Guardian, Haaretz,Reuters,Huffington Post,Le Monde and CNN.Hardly fringe stuff in my book.The people publishing on +972 are professional journalists who have worked for big name newspapers.GGranddad (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogs which are run by otherwise reliable news sites are often reliable. That is not a blanket statement of acceptance for all blogs. Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." 972 clearly fails this standard as their own website reads "We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole" and "+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine." further they specifically say they print articles from unsolicited submissions. The NYT also covered the story, use that.[14] and keep it in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Use both. The New York Times has placed the Golan Heights in Israel. They just put an Israeli demographer on the payroll (Arnon Soffer)who wrote that:-

When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

If the audience is middle class the NYTs is not reliable. If the audience is the readership of The New York Review of Books, it is highly reliable because it contains the best Israeli reportage, of the kind you get often also in +972.