Neutrality

Editors should remind themselves that this is not an account of Israel's operations from an Israelocentric perspective (one could easily put in a map showing radiating out from Israel its attested attack capacities from Tripoli to Sudan to Syria and Baghdad). It is an account of a conflict between two sides in a military confrontation, and both sides must be duly represented. The use here of IDF blogs, or other blogs is not permitted. Given that it is just one more I/P conflict, all of the relevant material will be amply supplied by mainstream newspapers and specialist (credited) journals.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Internet blogs are in most cases not admissible sources for articles such as this (see WP:SPS). If you spot any lack of neutrality in the article, feel free to edit. EIN (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously heavily edited by Israeli propagandists. Why are there pictures of damage in Sderot and Beersheba and none of Gaza where the dying is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.15.38 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't constitute a NPOV issue. Do you have a COPYRIGHT-free image of such to post? Wiki cannot "borrow" photographs from news sources - no legal right. Nor can we make screen-grabs from broadcast news. Until an editor supplies a free-to-use image, and cares to improve the article with it, . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV

What's the point of adding POV?--AntonTalk 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sign that equal voice is given the two parties in the conflict. It sounds so far like an IDF version of events, and indeed an IDF blog has been used, and when I removed it per failure to pass RS criteria, it was immediately restored by an editor who thinks a specialist journalist in Jerusalem, writing for the Christian Science Monitor was pushing 'propaganda' for stating as a matter of record that Hamas has reined in rocket fire since November 2012, as per the cease-fire agreement, and only assumed responsibility for rockets fired from the Strip today. You'd never guess this from the article being patched up today, and it's evident the majority of contributions show zero interest in WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using POV is not going to solve the NPOV unless you edit, correct or talk with the user(s). I do not like to see the articles just hang with "POV". As per ((POV/doc)), I encourage you to point the issue rather than giving general idea. --AntonTalk 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does one edit an article when one's first addition is automatically reverted at sight with a false edit summary? Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is almost no elbow room for any experienced editor who has been reverted to restore improperly removed material, or further remove things like the IDF blog which is in direct contradiction with the given data from Bryant and happens to use a unilateral statistic from a belligerent in the conflict while eliding all mention of the alternative perspective? Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your point. Why don't you intervene with editor(s)? --AntonTalk 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll notify here that for one, User:Galatz, whose been round for 5 years, cannot alter the existing text for a day. He broke the 1R rule in ARBPIA articles with the edit summary ‘Undid propaganda’ (false edit summary also) here, removing citation tags uynder false pretenses, since they were entered because the IDF blog is not usable and here. Normally, this merits an automatic suspension or sanction, but I'm not personally going to worry admins for the moment. All red-ink editors and others should study the rules on reverting and fashion their edits in such a way that they do not revert the given text more than once, except to correct obvious vandalism.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just nuts, unless something is done what we are going to have is a POV tag sitting around for months. My suggestion is to take this whole thing back to arbcom and ask that well established editors be allowed to at least have 2RR or something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing your tag - you are using the TP as a WP:SOAP - so far, everything is properly cited.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this article is Pov. A lot of IDF-people work on it. Not many Palestinians.--Ezzex (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using "IDF" as a euphemism for "Jew" (as in your recent edits) it's still unacceptable. If you think any individual editor has an unacceptable COI, you should address it. Otherwise, address the issues, not the editors. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use the term jewish people in the sense that they usually are more emotional connected to this conflict than non-jewish Brits, Americans, French etc. They should therefore stay away or be more aware of the problem of subjectivity.--Ezzex (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Address the issue, not ethnicity or editor. Wiki does not encourage such complain. --AntonTalk 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree with that. Ethnicity is sometime relevant, especially here. By using that name on the article, Operation Protective Edge, you already feel that the director is IDF and it's henchmen.--Ezzex (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not on the contributor, not like your own restriction, which is against to Wiki. Do you have Wiki reference to say "Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article"? --AntonTalk 08:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't "forum" this discussion with asking for some non-existent Wiki policy - your first comment was enough to make the point. The Administrator is already watching and will act accordingly again if necessary.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about policy in debates. I've been on wikipedia for years and will express my opinions as i wish.--Ezzex (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sat in the pov-tag. This article is simply too much from a israeli viewpoint.--Ezzex (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly protest the use of all the Israeli/jewish sources in this article. This is outrageous and a proof that english wikipedia have sunken to a level that is beyond any belief. You have finally became a tool for Israel.--Ezzex (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are "Jewish sources"? sources that eat kosher foods? And maybe you don't notice the many links in the article to Al-Jazeera and Maan News i.e. "Arab sources". Yuvn86 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas fired/IDF blog

Hamas fired more than 450 rockets at Israel since the beginning of 2014, by the time Operation Protective Edge began. ("Live updates: Ggaza terrorists fire rockets". Retrieved 8 July 2014.)

This is an improvement from the prior version, reducing the issue to 2014 the relevant time space for the background (start to mention 2001 and you get the counter of the several wars of infrastructural and human devastation, of wars and the ongoing blockage by Israel, and get nowhere)

However

Implication in Lead

The implication in the Lead is that the Operation is a response to the killing of the teenagers. It's a subtlety, but it's in retaliation to the rocket attacks, that have intensified following the chain of events that can be traced back to the killing of the teenagers, but the causal link is not as direct as we currently state. The results of this error can be seen in the current ITN item on Main Page which boldly states the erroneous cause and effect. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas. That was followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia. Micky Rosenfeld, the Israeli police spokesman, and a lawyer for two of the suspects said Tuesday that they did not know if that was true and that the investigation was continuing.The kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teenagers led to a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, which in turn appeared to push Hamas to respond from Gaza, which it controls.'Steven Erlanger, Isabel Kershner, Dozens of Gaza Strikes by Israel as Hamas Extends Rockets’ Range,' New York Times 9 July 2014.

It's simply what sources report, and everyone knows.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another lead problem

a senior Palestinian intelligence official said off the record that the disappearance of the two suspects immediately after the kidnapping constituted: "clear evidence they have links with the abduction".[

This has been inserted into the lead to finger Hamas. The statement was made to link the abduction of the 3 youths with the two missing Hebronites. It was not made by the PNA official to link the abduction of the 3 youths to Hamas, as it has been spun here. This is both POV pushing and a notable WP:OR violation and thirdly, the detail would not even be lead-worthy, even were it true, which it is not. It should be removed immediately.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8 July amphibious attack

If there were four armed Palestinians, how were both of them killed? Further, both of those numbers disagree with the cited article, which says that five assailants were killed, of an unspecified total number. AudiblySilenced (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly afterward, four armed Palestinians attempted to cross into Israel via the beach at Kibbutz Zikim. Gunfire ensued with the IDF resulting in the death of both Palestinians.

Resolved
 – After researching further, two and four were both earlier published numbers, one more outdated than the other. Corrected both. AudiblySilenced✉ 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent and put your response in the proper chronological order on the TP - very confusing otherwise. I fixed it this time.

Non-well-formed sentence in intro

There is a non-well-formed sentence in the intro:

Although there is no evident link tying the Hamas governing body, was shared with the public,[8] Hamas endorsed the kidnapping as a means of securing an exchange of prisoners.

I am not entirely sure what was intended here -- an obvious fix would be to insert "that" instead of the first comma. However, its not clear to me that this fits the source given in the footnote. Someone more knowledgable please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.246.64 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor corrected it..HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have another name

It's should be renamed the Second Gaza War. Using operational name like Operation Protective Edge is very subjective and I've heard that such names should be avoided.--Ezzex (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: We should not use the titles of the parties to stand impartial e.g. the 2008-09 Gaza War.--Uishaki (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Wait until independent RS's call it something else. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The media has not generally called this a war, for one thing.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. I have not heard the conflict called by any other name by the media; I have, however, heard the Israeli operational name used multiple times. Wafflashizzles (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should not use Israel media as references

Editors should avoid using israeli newspapers as references. There are a lot of articles about this issue in British and US newspapers. This article have far to much references from Israeli sources. There are over 100 references and over 50 % seams to be israeli/jewish.--Ezzex (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they are WP:RS then they are fine. If you are seriously advocating some kind of racial quota on origins of RS, then we have a problem, that strikes at the heart of WP core concepts. Your racism is palpable btw. The concept of Israel or Jewish does not even seem to merit capitalisation in your world view, it would appear. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This is just your "no Jews should edit" by another means. I have removed your NPOV tag, as everything is properly cited and the article is balanced. I'm also going to ask for Doug to step in again, please? HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also did earlier, on his talk page. Im really outraged at this behaviour Irondome (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've also violated the 1RR rule for this article, Ezzex.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about using Arab media? Is it NPOV? You should not guide apart from Wiki policy. I'd report you if you continue non constructive edit + discussion. Discuss where the article goes out of scope after adding POV. Vague point like "Should not use Israel media as references" cannot be good idea. --AntonTalk 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently agree with OP. Considering Israeli media as a reliable source for this particular article is akin to considering RT a reliable source for the Ukraine crisis. This article is nothing more than Israeli propaganda attempting to downplay the plight of the Palestinian people. For example, you stated under July 10, "they plan a ground operation to free Palestinian prisoners", according to ynet, an Israeli news outlet. Nonsense. It's nothing but propaganda. The same people who are destroying entire neighborhoods of homes, or confiscating communal farmlands, bulldozing homes, blocking off certain areas, or not allowing civilian populations to leave their houses for extensive periods of time, are going to be "freeing" the Palestinians? The Israelis who torture, imprison without charges or trial, confiscate land, harass at military checkpoints, and often kill and beat innocent civilians are oh so concerned about them now that the international media is paying attention? Simply by using logic and looking at history, it's easy to deduce that the IDF does not care about following international law or basic human decency in its treatment of Gazan civilians. Please, just give me a break. Israeli news websites are obviously going to be highly partisan and are therefore inherently unreliable. Follow WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not want to discuss who is doing good or who is doing bad. The talk page is to improve the article. If you want to see there is a section/paragraph/line goes wrong, bring here and discuss. Generally, no one can deny the sources unless it is blacklisted. Normally, people wouldn't agreed to get Palestinian casualties from IDF sites and Israeli casualties from Hamas. Otherwise you have to mention as "Palestinian clam" or "Israeli claim". If you strongly feel that "Should not use Israel media as references", appeal to administrators by mentioning WP policy. --AntonTalk 09:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These kind of discussions don't change things and make them better. It's pretty obvious that the article should use a balanced sampling of RS rather than give undue weight to information in any particular subset of the media that qualifies as reliable, but complaining about things won't achieve anything and making sweeping statements about the Israeli media doesn't even make sense as anyone familiar with Haaretz will know. Fix the issues yourself by replacing sources with the highest quality alternatives. It's tedious but that is the only way to deal with it. If you see a source (and it's associated content) that you think should be replaced by a better source, replace it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside Ezzex's personal views of the Israeli media (which is too diverse for general statements), I think the notion that editors should be careful about sampling bias is perfectly valid and sensible. Ideally the diversity of the RS cited here should roughly reflect the diversity of the complete set of RS that are covering this event globally. So, if for example, half our sources are Israeli and the other half Palestinian, we are doing something very wrong indeed. Editors in the ARBPIA topic area rarely seem to think about RS sampling issues, I guess because it's natural to focus on the trees rather than the forest, but it would be better if they did. There do seem to be some obvious sourcing issues e.g. Arutz Sheva/INN is cited 6 times, a generally unreliable source for facts that is almost certainly replaceable unless it is discussing something related to the views of representatives of the settler movement. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human Shield

Hello. Why didn't you add that Hamas asked people to go to the roofs of the buildings to use as a human shield? Also, please don't use Haaretz as a source. It is pro-Palestine. Please use a pro-nothing source :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.108.62 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can RS that, stick it in. Remember we use The Guardian as a RS despite it's arguable POV. Haaretz is the Israeli Gruniad. (An old UK joke based on high prevalance of Guardian typos). Just got to grin and NPOV it through :) Irondome (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Newsweek article about this so I stuck it into the casualties section. - Galatz (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under "casualties and losses", a user reinstated the following claims:

Many of the civilian casualties have been caused by human shields. Video released shows after Israel's warning shots, instead of people running from the building they run to the roof, a tactic encouraged by a Hamas spokesman. Due to this the US State Department holds Hamas responsible for all civilian deaths.

The Israeli sources the term "human shield" very lightly. Standing on the roof of your own building is now a crime, because the residents have refused to give into the demands of the occupying power. They should have run away in terror while they watch their own home and belongings get evaporated just because. Those murdered by their air strikes should only blame themselves.

I mean look at the language used here: "instead of people running from the building". Is Wikipedia now the mouthpiece of the Israeli army? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you there.--Ezzex (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People are asked to leave, and are warned the building will be blown up. Its why its considered a human shield rather than someone just standing on their roof. How would you think it should be worded if you think think that is not neutral? Galatz (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like, Palestinians are refusing to leave their homes so that Israelis can blow them up? If Israel said they were about to nuke Gaza would those who didn't move into the sea be human shields? Sepsis II (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a human shield [1]--Ezzex (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are misusing the term human shield and should beignored like how we ignore the endless "terrorist" use by anti-Palestine media. The wording also makes it sound like the "human shields" are attacking civilians. People trying to protect their property are not human shields, human shields is when you force a civilian to open a possibly explosive package or you raid a house and force the occupants to remain so that you can shot out but the locals can't shoot back. Also, there is a long standing consensus that Arutz Sheva should not be used as a source. Also, Galatz has broken 1RR and 3RR. Sepsis II (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source states that Hamas Spokesman encouraged human shields. Are you saying the source is incorrect in stating that? Do you have anything to prove it wrong? If Hamas and Israel are both calling it Human Shields than this should be considered neutral. Galatz (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, why is the wording "human shield" even used in this context? and even if we were to accept that, there is no source for the "many of the civilians" claim. :::As a matter of fact, why on earth is this blame talk being included under the "casualties and losses" section? This section should simply list the casualties and losses. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view it is a disclaimer for the civilian casualties. If you can find a way to break out civilians that were not warned from warned than thats fine, but otherwise I think a disclaimer is important. For example I would also suggest you add something on the people in a cafe hurt while watching the world cup. It shows both sides - Galatz (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of changes to the wording to address the concerns here. In addition I added those watching the world cup as well as the Kaware family that Israel said was inadvertent. Thoughts? Galatz (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Coltsfan added Military Expert tag ....

Please, when you do this, say so in the edit summary and then come to the Talk Page and note it in the future. Thanks. What particulars do you feel need to be addressed? Without a proper edit summary, just tossing a tag on the article is not the thing to do. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to remove if user failed to express the idea of adding the tag. --AntonTalk 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pallywood

At the top of the Social Media section an anonymous user added a link to the main page for Pallywood which was immediately removed by someone whose entire profile is devoted to Anti-Israel. Seems to me like this was removed solely for political reasons and not for the good of the page. I have never seen anything about Pallywood before. Any thoughts on this? - Galatz (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice how you are tirelessly trying to give an Anti-Palestinian view in the whole article. It is not a crime if I hate the state of Israel. You have no right to intervene in others matters.--Uishaki (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what you mean since its not completely clear, however I have in many instances edited text to make it neutral plus added pro-Palestinian sources. However your point does not address the issue with the removal. It clearly added to the content of the section so why the removal? - Galatz (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Uishaki, the article is very balanced and reflects what the Reliable Sources state. Wikipedia is not a forum or a battleground to work out Arab-Israeli conflicts - keep your personal opinions about people(s) off the Talk Page and supply or discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article. This is an encyclopedia which reflects facts - good, bad or indifferent. Now, to address the issue - not sure what if any value there is to add a link to Pallywood as far as the specifics of this article's topic - no objection to removing it without any valid context. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that those 2 edits[2][3] could be by Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis editing via a proxy. For those unfamiliar with Grawp, he is what I think can reasonably be described as a racist extremist and fanatical Israel supporter. He has been disrupting Wikipedia for 10 years since he was 15 years old. He's issued countless death threats and threats of violence. Exactly the kind of person who would think adding a Pallywood link is perfectly reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are *guessing* they *could* be by someone? Well, that seem highly relevant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.246.100 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because I will be reverting any edits I see based on my *guessing* they *could* be JarlaxleArtemis and then an admin will probably block the IP as they usually do and maybe even revdel the edits if necessary. Anything else ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is dealing with war. Any attempt by editors to insinuate that one side's casualties are theatrical (Pallywood) should be automatically reverted. Any information emerging that shows photo manipulation, or the dissemination of deliberately falsified information by official bodies should be included. The first victim of war is truth, and there is a lot of untruth here, but we put it in because the majority of sources hammer at it. This is an asymmetric war between two electorally legitimated states technically, and in war, one side should not be called AIF/IDF/soldiers and the other side 'militants', 'operatives' let alone the 'terrorists' which is the default language of IDF handouts and mainstream sources. But since RS maintain this stupid bias, we are obliged to accept it (with the exception of 'terrorists'. ) Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reaction

Hello, since I am unable to edit the article, would someone be able to add in the Indian reaction to the crisis and operation? Here is the source. http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/23602/Official+Spokespersons+response+to+a+media+question+on+escalation+of+violence+in+Gaza+and+Israel 184.59.8.225 (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--AntonTalk 06:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 children killed

at the moment http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/09/these-are-the-names-of-13-children-killed-in-gaza/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back ground section

In the back ground, the last paragraph, some allegations related to Iran's equipment support is presented. I reckon that, this claim is not suitable for this section, and this article somehow. May be this should be moved to the main articles. Mhhossein (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Casualties

Should the Israeli count be updated from none to one? The woman who died in Haifa was running for shelter at the time she collapsed. I haven't heard a cause for the collapse, but to me this implies its indirectly related to the rocket fire from Gaza. - Galatz (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would lean toward yes but it would be better to had a source saying 1 dead Israeli or first Israeli dead. --JFH (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I actually can't find any that specifically say that, everything I am finding just says that she collapsed and died. - Galatz (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It's probably misleading to count people who die from heart-failure as having being 'killed' by the conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that was my concern. It could be argued that the heart issue was indirectly related to the operation, but that probably cannot be concerned. I think for now it makes the most sense to leave it at zero, especialyl since neither side is claiming its the first death.Galatz (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If she did die from a heart attack as a result of rocket fire, why wouldn't it be added? In the Gulf War article, it highlights Israelis who died from heart attacks as a result of Scud missiles fired from Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


100s of people are dying of heart-attacks every day. The direct cause is heart-disease, and the stress (such as is caused by air-raid sirens) is merely a trigger.Avaya1 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of possible Israeli propaganda groups who target wikipedia

In 2008 the pro-Israel activist group CAMERA launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2010 two pro-settler Israeli groups, Yesha Council and Israel Sheli, launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use Wikipedia to promote Israel's point of view. A prize was to be given to the editor who inserted the most pro-Israel changes.[4]. I don't know if this is happening here, but everybody should be aware and watch out for this--Ezzex (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already removed per WP:TALK. Not sure whether I entirely agree with that, but whatever. Anyway, for what's it's worth, having edited in this topic area for years, I think this is a red herring. Activists/nationalists and many other 'ists' who are willing to ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE don't need to be organized or rewarded in order to fill articles with crap. It comes naturally and it's inevitable. It happens everyday in Wikipedia in all sorts of topic areas. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not tolerate that someone remove my post, like Hammerfilms did. This is not acceptable--Ezzex (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HammerFilmFan must have decided that the comment met one of the criteria listed in WP:TALKNO, perhaps the last one "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." It's true though that editors here need to be aware and watch out for editors who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE regardless of who they are advocating for. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An Administrator has already removed one of your posts on here a couple of days ago - if you violate WP:TALK then off it goes. Keep your racism to yourself, and only discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article. Your post does NOT address improvements to the article via a Reliable Source, it is Soapboxing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should stay the fuck clear of my post. You can read them and reply, but don't remove them.--Ezzex (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I wholeheartedly support the "if you violate WP:TALK then off it goes" approach in WP:ARBPIA, it's debatable whether this comment meets the criteria (and I've seen thousands of comments in ARBPIA talk pages over the years that unambiguously meet the criteria), so it is probably better to leave it alone. The statement "I don't know if this is happening here, but everybody should be aware and watch out for this" is not soapboxing in my view and the statements that preceded it are factually accurate. Actually it's incomplete because NGO Monitor has also targeted Wikipedia and was caught doing it. Then there are the hundreds of sockpuppets that have been blocked over the years and the hundreds that haven't. I could go on. So this kind of thing, partisan editing and advocacy whether organized or not is a real problem, and saying so is not soapboxing. It's a practical problem that directly impacts on the quality and policy compliance of articles in WP:ARBPIA every single day, especially for topics in the news. Editors need to be aware of it and factor it in to their activities in the topic area. That is just how it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just pro-Israel activists that you need to worry about. Pro-Palestine activists do it too. Palestinian Journalists Syndicate head Abdul Nasser An-Najar said he set up Wikipedia editing groups as well. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately WP:NOTADVOCATE doesn't say 'Having said all that, if you are advocating for XYZ you are good to go', so the beliefs and intent of the activists are irrelevant. There is an interesting debate to be had about the nature of advocacy in the topic area, the methods used by people who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE and what to do about it, but this isn't the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Why does the article contain files that only promote Israel's POV but has no photos of the impact in Gaza? I think these should be removed for now until the others are added. There has to be balance in here. It is also pretty clear that IDF files are flooding Wikipedia, so I expect more of these to pop up in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. There are 4 photos. 2 are from Israel, 2 are from Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B.S. there are two photos both showing the benign damage caused by the rockets from Gaza. Where are the photos showing the destruction in Gaza? Take your partisan crap out of here. NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link to the Getty Images webpage for photos from Gaza, although wikipedia doesn't have the rights to host these images itself hopefully a link to the gallery is allowed. Hopefully this quells a lot of the problems that Fitzcarmalan has. Unfortunately I doubt wikipedia has many editors that are active in the gaza region that can upload photographs they have the rights to, to wikimedia. However if any editors know of anyone that has photographs their contributions would be welcome to the Wikipedia article. Nrg800 (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I still think we should wait till someone uploads the required files.
Also, I don't have "problems". I just have concerns about the article's NPOV and I don't think I'm the only one here. Please be careful with the choice of words next time. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, yes, I reread it and it sounded a lot more aggressive than I meant. I was trying to think pragmatically and I guess the response was too pragmatic. But yes. Hopefully by adding an external link for photos from both sides we can portray this event in a much more neutral way. Nrg800 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

The extremely important fact that Gaza is currently under Israeli miltary occupation has been removed from this article without explanation. Can someone revert that disruptive edit. Sepsis II (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In every article written about that, it always says something similar to "its considered illegal under international law, however Israel disputes that." You were just putting the one side, I would suggest putting the other view as a disclaimer and to make it neutral. With the disclaimer there I would think its fine, but hopefully the person who reversed it will jump in as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather hoping you would explain your disruptive edit. "Occupied" Gaza? That is not how the broad spectrum RS are terming it. It is the language of the rejectionist. You seem to be attempting to insert the POV of Hamas or similar radicals. It is my understanding that the 2 State-Solution is still consensus, both in the real world, and on WP. Such POV has no place in mainspace. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And on a rather more real world point, for an "Occupied" territory, it does seem to be shooting rather a lot of rockets indiscriminately at population centres. Rather a lax occupation, to a NPOV observer! Irondome (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, you are both wrong and it is rather pointless identifying "Occupied Gaza" as'the POV of Hamas or similar radicals' since this implies that the majority of judges in Israel's Supreme Court are either affiliated with Hamas or are as radical as those folks are said to be. Unlike editors here, those members of the judiciary understand the implications of international law, as evidenced in the judgement they handed down in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Israel (Targeted Killings). See Even J. Criddle,'Proportionality in Counterinsurgency:Reconciling Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,' in William C. Banks (ed.) Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare, Oxford University Press, 2013 pp.24ff., esp. pp.39ff., where Criddle construes that decision as determining, in line with earlier case decisions, that:-

'these territories (West Bank/Gaza) should be viewed as a single territorial unit under Israeli occupation, notwithstanding Israel's formal pull-out from Gaza in 2005' (p.40)

So Sepsis is quite correct, mainstream and respectful of Israeli judicial opinions, the very contrary of 'disuptive' (read 'politically correct'). On the other hand, it is WP:OR to introduce the term unless some consensually recognized RS states as much in the specific context of Operationb Protective Cliff. If Sepsis has such an authoritative source at hand, it is perfectly within his right to suggest it, and this has nothing to do with pushing Hamas's 'terroristic' beliefs, but the considered opinion of Israel's finest public legal minds, i.e., the 'real world' many editors seem to have no knowledge of. Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find sources talking on the occupation and it's importance to these attacks.See minute 7+ As long as the occupation persists, it will continue to breed violence, instability and hatred on both sides.... Sepsis II (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editorial - we need a front-page news story or a scholarly book cited for that point. As far as I know, there are no Israeli troops currently occupying the Gaza strip.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read scholarly works which amèply define a state all of whose borders are patrolled by Israel, its imports and exports restricted at will by the other state, and 25% of its productive agricultural land off-limits on pain of instant death if entered. And the lay of both international and Israeli law determines what we write, not what we personally believe-Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are under a blockade and de faco an occupation. According to this link: Naval blockades are acts of war under international law, so one country may legally blockade another only if it is acting in individual or collective self-defense. Many consider Israel's blockade to be on very shaky legal ground [5].--Ezzex (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lost an extremely long post due to an edit conflict, so I am rather pissed off. My main point was that there are 2 concepts of "occupation" (and yeah I am totally aware of Its usage in Israeli judicial procedure, with sometimes mixed results) The first is the legalistic, International law usage, used within that context, many times. The second is more worrying. "Occupation" is used by rejectionists of a 2 state solution, and Hamas, as shorthand for the very existence of the state of Israel, and to have this "occupation" destroyed. The section as it was can certainly be read both ways, but in this context it is unnecessarily inflammatory and POV. Its not critical to the section anyway. Irondome (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that Palestine is occupied is very npov, you won't get far on wikipedia trying to argue otherwise. As Nishidani states, the only thing that matters here is are RS putting these attacks and the occupation together as related which a quick google search, and the links I posted above show to be affirmitive. Sepsis II (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irondome, this is no place to discuss theories of 'occupation'. The Israeli Supreme Court defined the meaning of the concept, and had you been familiar with the judgement you would not have written what you wrote. You were wrong, we are all fallible. Life is self-correction, except in the I/P area, where memes substitute for thinking or informed study.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are evading the point. What constitutes "Palestine"? Please clarify your vague terminology. You seem to be endorsing a view that "Palestine" is Israel. Therefore, it appears to be an attempt via WP to delegitimise Israel. Your advice on how to prosper on WP seems rather worrying, in that case. Irondome (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a point, you keep going into rants and pretending to be confused about basic facts. Sepsis II (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sepsis. You are again rising to the bait, or bait (that goes for everyone). Stop it, no one listens. One must edit with serenity, even when death is round the corner. Don't use words like 'rant'. Reply to the substance of edits, and ignore the rest.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hardly ranting, I must point out. Nishidani, you are a fine Wikipedian. Irondome (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An important note, but it doesn't have an official place to be put on this article.

For the first time, Arab media is starting to openly criticize Hamas (while still criticizing Israel of course). I think this is important to note, but I don't think it should be put under official state reactions. Maybe create a new place for it in the article?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4541932,00.html

"Like their Israeli counterparts, Arab media outlets have been extensively covering the IDF's Operation Protective Edge. They have also conducted countless interviews with analysts, delivered breaking news and published various international condemnations. Unlike the Israeli media, however, the finger of blame is of course firmly pointed at Israel, while the Palestinian people are painted solely as victims.

But during this operation it has become evident that alongside the standard criticism of Israel, Hamas, which has in recent years lost face among the Arab public, has also been taking quite a bit of fire.

An example of this can be found in the Saudi newspaper “Al Watan”, which published an editorial on Friday that slammed not only Israel, but Hamas as well.

The criticism of Hamas appears later on: “The world does not deal with Palestinians in Gaza and international organizations do not do them justice because Hamas has a bad relationship with the world, and no matter how right the issue is, there needs to be a leadership that can make contact with the world for support.”

The article further explained that among other things, “Hamas’s isolation, its diplomatic impotence, its disconnection from the Authority and rebellion against anyone who is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people makes it appear as a criminal in the eyes of the rest of the world.”

In Egypt, it was the television presenter and interviewer Amr Adeeb, known for his opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, who took heat for his support for Hamas.

He called on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to intervene for the sake of Gaza's residents, open the crossing points and provide assistance. However, considering the current atmosphere in Egypt against Hamas, which is affiliated with the commonly despised Muslim Brotherhood organization, the reactions were quick to come and Adeeb was called a Hamas member and a terrorist.

Broadcaster Amani al-Hayat from ON TV, which is affiliated with the Egyptian regime, was one of those who slammed Adeeb. She claimed that Hamas was to blame for Israel’s “massacre” in the Gaza Strip and said that Hamas deliberately created the crisis in Gaza so that the Rafah crossing would be opened." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this aspect will develop. The BBC has already several times alluded to the stagnation of peace talks due to a suspected desire on the part of the Egyptian regime to severly weaken Hamas before negotions begin. It will in time probably become more noticable in RS. I support an eventual additional section if sufficently supported by RS. Irondome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean cease fire talks? Because Hamas isn't involved in peace talks. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Egypt is dragging it's feet before it decides to be an active backchannel for a ceasefire. The BBC also mentions Kuwait as a potential backchannel, behaving in a similar fashion to Sissi's Govt. Will have to doublecheck that. There also good analysis on Hamas motivations in recent BBC reports Irondome (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Incidents

So far, the only two incidents I've been made aware of that happened outside of Israel/Gaza as a result of the current conflict are these two:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.604572

and

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/woman-kicked-off-plane-at-pbia-after-argument-abou/ngc7Z/

Should these be added? Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd link seems apt for the event. --AntonTalk 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why the first link isn't apt? 98.203.107.131 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism happens not for "Operation Protective Edge" (OPE) even before OPE and would happen after OPE. Otherwise, it could be quoted clearly from Jewish Community Council thru its past experience. --AntonTalk 03:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about anti-Semitism happening before OPE and will happen after OPE. However, analysis has shown that during conflicts such as OPE, anti-Semitism has a upsurge. This isn't a coincidence. The victim in this case said that the attackers were yelling about Gaza. I don't think this should be so easily brushed off as just plain old anti-Semitism (in a manner of speaking). There is an article about anti-Semitism during the Gaza War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_incidents_during_the_Gaza_War So I don't see how this is unrelated. 98.203.107.131 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of the dead and the Israeli massacres!

We want to add images to Israeli crimes. Please do not delete this post. Wikipedia is not an Israeli newspaper!

--الشبح العربي (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any images that are relevant to the article and which are a part of the public domain, insert them or bring them up in this discussion.
-Semper Iustus 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper Iustus (talk • contribs)
This article is about the Israeli military action "Operation Protective Edge" not about some 'massacre' that may or may not have occurred - if you have some sort of Reliable Source which states the facts, please bring the citation to the Talk Page and we can work it in. Be aware that POV-Op Ed sites do not qualify, and copyright-protected photos are not allowed on Wikipedia - they'd have to be independent and freely given to Wiki Commons.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<-Photos in the WP:ARBPIA topic area largely reflect the constraints imposed by licensing requirements. There are very few Palestinian editors or editors in the Gaza Strip who can upload photos they have taken themselves and few organizations publish their photos with creative commons licences, with the IDF being a notable and significant exception. B'Tselem use CC licences. Their field researcher Muhammad Sabah is in Gaza Strip and may have posted some photos. I haven't checked. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about how many people in Gaza or visitors will not have cellphones with cameras - perhaps more than might be thought of at first - all they need to do is send the phtoto to another person if they themselves cannot upload to Wiki. We'll just have to see. Having been in that area of the world before, the most common of people always seemed to have some sort of mobile phone, and television.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


ok, this site contains pictures of the crimes of the Israeli occupation here, you are an expert on Wikipedia, but you can put pictures barbaric crimes!!!! Or it's about the Zionist lobby and its control over the media!!! You you control public opinion for the benefit of the Zionist entity, unfortunately, say the truth!!

--الشبح العربي (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to "right great wrongs" as you perceive them, nor for soapboxing - please read the pertinent Wikipedia policies on these issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT Keep your comments on the Talk Page on-topic and free from political forum-debate, as the TP's are not a forum (READ the intro to this page at the top ^ please!) This article is about the military operation, not the so-called occupation of Gaza - please provide URL's of the specific photos from your site you wish to add - also, provide a provenance for them so they will pass the copyright questions that will be posed on Wiki Commons.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those images can't be used in Wikipedia (or Commons). They are copyrighted with all rights reserved by دنيا الوطن. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide redirects here? Really?

I'm not sure what the guidelines are for an article redirect but this seems loaded and highly inappropriate. --46.117.203.210 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts/IPs that make disruptive edits like that over and over again need to be blocked. I've reported it Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brusselsprouts146. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sean. This sort of article gets all sorts of "involved idiots" taking sides and trying to sort out international turmoils on a bloody encyclopedia! Morons. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An eagle eyed admin blocked Brusselsprouts146 before they saw my ANI post. So my reporting it achieved nothing in practice. You're welcome. Yep, it's a bit odd that out of the ~4.5 million encyclopedia articles, people often focus on the tiny subset where their edits are most likely to be compromised by their personal views and they are most likely to generate/participate in conflicts with other people who hold different views. Still, admins have seen disruptive editing like Brusselsprouts146's in the topic area hundreds of times before so I'm sure they be willing to help brutally suppress it if it's reported. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The New York Times did it better than you and the section should be revisited.

"This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas, followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia." -http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/israel-steps-up-offensive-against-hamas-in-gaza.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such as how? Your anonymous IP statement is far to vague to be of any value.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what was vague about it. An rs provided a perfectly concise paragragh reflected in most other sources while the background here ignored the common narrative to focus on people bein arrested. It looks like someone else agreed and restructured it. If a background section returns then it should follow the example shown in the Times (obviously without ripping it off). I was especially surprised to see no mention of La Familia. Is that clear enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.152 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your one point about La Familia is good. Simply providing an RS without context is of little value for specifics of what needs to be changed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you want context then look at the Times paragraph vs the previous background section. It was a joke. Stop playing coy and just do better at editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't edit the lead. 2) If you want something changed, you need to be specific. Apparently most editors on here were more or less happy with the information you wanted amended, so it is your responsibility to provide what changes you'd like to see OR why not just register and do so yourself? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please get involved here??

This is why I usually don't edit IP articles, this talk page has turned into a forum for commenting about the ongoing conflict, rather than how to improve this article, and it really needs to stop. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The large majority of this talk section is still on-topic, save a few minor disturbances. I think the situation is far from needing an admin to be kept under control (at least at this point). --Semper Iustus 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper Iustus (talk • contribs)

Contradiction

On the introduction is mentioned that one israeli death has been reported, while then the information contradicts itself saying that there's no israeli casualties. --190.172.201.52 (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron dome as gamechanger?

Long time reader, first time writer on wikipedia... just wondering, I came to this article via Iron Dome to see how it has played out in the timeline. While it is represented factually, something feels missing. In terms of military history, there is a *major* revolution happening due to the Iron Dome saving lives. If not for that- tel aviv would have been hit several times over, for example. Shouldn't there be a separate section elaborating that somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.30.80 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should only deal with it in as much as it relates to this specific military operation i.e. specific interception instances, things like that. It is very easy for articles like this to spin out of control via scope creep as people add information about things (e.g. the blockade, the prisoners, the kidnapping, the occupation, and many other things) that they think are pertinent background but which are best dealt with in other dedicated. The Iron Dome article (and talk page) and to a much lesser extent the Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Iron_Dome section are probably the most appropriate places to deal with the technology itself and its effectiveness etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That information belongs in the Iron Dome article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories