POV scope

This page has been created with an intentionally POV scope, selectively copying material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a clearly one-sided manner, presenting only Palestinian and not Israeli usage of human shields. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that would be because the article is not about use of human shields by Israel? Why should an article about the price of tea in China focus on the price of tea in Iran? --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I made it clear. This page has been created from exactly one-side of a two-sided and balanced section at the parent page, making this page no longer two-sided and balanced, but POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part that was unclear to me was "and not Israeli usage of human shields." I agree that it should balance out all POVs (i.e., IDF alleges, Hamas denies, HRW says x, WHO says y, and so forth). But suggesting that we should be saying "Oh, and by the way, Israel also uses human shields" seems off topic. Are you saying this article is a POV fork? --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it is rather. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Are you going to nominate it for deletion? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does having rocket launching sites near schools and playgrounds not count as human shields. They haven't got babies strapped to their chests but the goal/outcome is the same. There is videos of these sites in close proximity to civilian locations. Hamas' use of human shields is systematic and apart of there doctrine. This is why there is a whole article dedicated to just this topic. When one side is systematically using human shields I think you are creating false balance with the attempt to assert that both sides use human shields. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the original article that suffers from WP:FALSEBALANCE. The sections about Israel and Palestine are of similar size, and only you read it carefully you will realise that since 2009 there were about 20 cases of supposed Israeli use of human shields (even if we consider all the sources there equally reliable), whereas in case of Hamas it's been systematic. Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is 20 cases not "systematic"? If a workplace had 20 incidents of sexual harassment or 20 health code violations in 14 years would these not be "systematic" problems? Or at least "systemic" ones? This article is a POV fork and should probably be nominated for deletion, or renamed "Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to allow for a more honest and complete picture. WillowCity(talk) 01:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the size of the organisation. In the best-run organisation with thousands of people there will be instances of sexual harassment from time to time. Alaexis¿question? 07:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic - "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical". Hamas has been proven to fire rockets from civilian areas. places like schools, apartments, hospitals. This is systematic, its time and time again. 20 cases over 14 years is not systematic, "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical." IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to persuade me that 20 instances of the same war crime in 14 years is not systematic, or, at the very least, systemic.
And, really, the "last 14 years" thing is a bit of a red herring, considering the duration of the conflict. Israel's human shield practices were so systematic that it employed a grotesque euphemism for them: the "Neighbor Procedure". This "fixed plan or system" was an entrenched historical reality. WillowCity(talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notable topic that merits its own article. It is balanced and presents important information. Dovidroth (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. With gratitude for a civil discussion, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations of use of human shields by Hamas – Per WP:NDESC "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)" Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per sources already raised above, EU has condemned this practice. So has US Per source [2] Homerethegreat (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we go this way, half of the articles on Wikipedia will start with the words "Allegations"Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly over-use or abuse of the term should be a sub section? There are many cases when the IDF strike a residential area claiming to be targeting an enemy, when to me really looks like they killed the guy at home some with his entire family and neighbours. Combatants spending time with their wives and kids is really not a reasonable user of the term "human shield", and there is never very much evidence shown that these locations are being used for substantial military activities, just the presence of an individual the IDF wanted dead. Irtapil (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

someone removing comments in this page

someone deleted a comment on this talk page, the comment wasn't particularly constructive, but i thought we were only supposed to remove other people's comments in extreme cases of vandalism? Irtapil (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Irtapil: As per a recent amendment to WP:ARBECR, non-EC users can only use the talk page to post edit requests. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil -- What @ARandomName123 said. If it's not an edit request, it's subject to removal. Especially if it's just bait to turn the talk page into a forum dumpster fire. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exceptional claim?

Um, BilledMammal, even if it were an exceptional claim, and it is not just because you say so, that is an exceptional source, a work of scholarship by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini published by the University of California Press is the very definition of an exceptional source. Kindly return what you improperly removed. nableezy - 11:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your following edit is likewise inappropriate as blatant synthesis, it nowhere mentions human shields. For another comparison of the claim of shielding regarding the Ministry of Defense, see Amira Hass. nableezy - 12:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the interviewed Gazan says is "hiding among civilians".
That source doesn't make any claims, it just asks some rhetorical questions. If you want answers to them, What is and is not Human Shielding? is a good article - it explains that intent is required, and notes there are additional protections for medical and cultural facilities. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source does not say the word shield anywhere, making your usage of the quote synthesis. nableezy - 12:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article addresses whether Hamas is hiding among civilians to deter Israeli attacks. Sources don't need to address the full question to be relevant - I note that several other sources currently in the article also don't use the magic words - they just need to address part of it, and this source addresses the first half. BilledMammal (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t what human shields means and the source does not discuss the topic of this article. You can’t remove noted scholars in international law and the Israeli Palestinian conflict writing in the area of their expertise and directly discussing the topic of this article and include random people on the street not discussing the topic of this article. nableezy - 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The claim that Hamas is targeting the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv - as opposed to launching indiscriminate attacks against Tel Aviv - goes against virtually every reliable source we have on the topic of these rocket attacks. It's an exceptional claim, and one source isn't enough to meet that burden or to establish that inclusion is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion does not make it true and if you won’t restore it I will. nableezy - 12:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a claim is as out of step with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources as this claim is a single source isn't sufficient to justify its inclusion; at a bare minimum several reliable sources making such a claim are required. Do you have any other sources supporting the claim that Hamas targets the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv? Sources claiming that they have the capabilities to do so would also be beneficial.
I did a quick search myself for sources on this topic and every one I found claimed that the city was targeted; one even included a Hamas quote saying as much. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt the claim that is being made, it is a comparison in how accusations are levied. It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards". Ill reproduce here the quote you removed so anybody reading isnt left with the misimpression that you are creating: "Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields." Nowhere in the quote does it say anything about targeting, what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimes. It is about placement of military assets, like command centers, in populated areas, and only one side being accused of using human shields. nableezy - 13:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards". Can you explain what difference you see between "targeted" and "launched towards" in this context? To me, they mean the same thing.
what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimes The article still says that; Gordon and Perugini remarking that the framing of protestors as terrorists or human shields effectively "categorizes any Palestinian from Gaza who participates in civil protests as a terrorist who is consequently killable"; they find that the usage of the human shield accusation both during war and civil protest has caused the very idea of a Palestinian civilian to have "disappeared" in Israeli discourse. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One is active one is passive. The quote is saying that Israel is not accused of using human shields despite its Ministry of Defense being located in the heart of Tel Aviv (you can check a map if you like). While Hamas is accused of using human shields for doing the same. And that this disparity in treatment is meant to absolve Israel of blame for civilian casualties, making them always be, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian deaths, the fault of Hamas. The latter bit is about Israeli claims about Palestinians, not about disparity in treatment in the claims themselves. nableezy - 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One is active one is passive. That doesn't really explain the difference here; the quote claims that Hamas is "aiming at", "launching at", "targeting" (whichever word you prefer; they're all the same to me in this context) the IDF headquarters, not the city of Tel Aviv.
Either way, lets not get stuck on semantics; sources that say anything close to any of the above will be helpful in establishing that inclusion is WP:DUE. Have you been able to find such sources, because I have looked further and I cannot? BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isnt the claim. You are misrepresenting what Gordon and Perugini are saying. They are talking about the location of the military asset, not how precise a weapon is used. You are saying the quote is about the missiles targeting something, no, that is not the topic of this article. This article, and the source, is about shielding military assets by civilians. And the source is saying that Israel does not face the same accusation for the same activity that it accuses Hamas of. nableezy - 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are saying ...when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center.
Not at Tel Aviv, which virtually every other reliable source is saying, but at the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv; they're talking about Hamas' intent with these rocket launches.
Now, I don't know why they're so at odds with every other reliable source, but the fact is they are; unless we can find additional reliable sources that make this claim - and so far, I have not been able to - we cannot include it. It's a violation both of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misrepresenting what the argument is. Towards means in the direction of. Not aimed at. It isnt even launched at Tel Aviv, it is launched towards Tel Aviv. Nobody is claiming that Hamas targets the Ministry of Defense building at 127 133, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel. That is not what either the source or the article is discussing. So a. that is not the claim, b. what the article is saying is not exceptional, and c. you are literally placing in the article a random Gazan on the street but excluding widely cited scholars writing a book published by University of California Press on the basis of WP:DUE? And you are doing so with a blatant misreading of the source, despite repeated efforts to explain it to you. The source is not saying that Hamas launches rockets aimed at the MoD. It is saying when Hamas launches rockets in that direction that Israel is not accused of shielding its MoD through the population of Tel Aviv. Now you either get this or you dont, but this is a supremely reliable source directly discussing the topic of this article. nableezy - 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of "launched towards X" is that X is the intended target or destination; that the projectile was directed in the general direction of X with the intention of hitting it. The accuracy or precision may vary, but the intent exists. This isn't just my definition; to make sure I wasn't mistaken I asked ChatGPT what "Launched towards X" would mean and it gave the same description.
Regardless of which of us is correct we can't use the quote; if I am correct it is WP:UNDUE, if you are correct it is so poorly written that it would mislead many of our readers. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Towards: in the direction of; Toward: in the direction of; towards: in the direction of, or closer to someone or something. I dont really care what ChatGPT told you, and no it is not so poorly written that it would mislead anybody, and no you are not in a position of, having repeatedly misunderstood the source, claiming that something published by University of California Press is poorly written, and again, you are literally placing in the article a quote from a random Gazan on the street not even directly discussing the topic of the article, but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP (aka the best sources available). That is on its face absurd POV pushing. Nothing is implied regarding Hamas's ability or desire to aim at anything, the sentence isnt about the weapon used or the targeting of, it is about the location of military assets in civilian spaces and how only Hamas is claimed to use human shields for that same thing Israel does. nableezy - 15:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really care what ChatGPT told you You should; it means that my interpretation is almost certainly the most common interpretation of "launched towards X", which in turn means that many of our readers will be misled if your interpretation of the source is correct.
but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP Works of scholarship aren't automatically WP:DUE.
An alternative is to replace the quote with a summary; while I would be concerned that the summary is incorrect as it would be based on your interpretation, it would be an improvement over including the quote directly. Perhaps:

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards them, despite the presence of the Israel Defence Forces headquarters in the city center, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

Thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT is not a reliable source, Gordon and Perugini are. Im fine with your rephrasing though for the most part, cut when Hamas launched rockets towards them, because a thats verging on plagiarism and b that isnt exactly what the source says. But if you had done that to begin with we would not have had a dispute and we could have productively niggled over the wording instead of the inclusion of what is inarguably the best source on the entire page. nableezy - 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT is not a reliable source. It's not, but it is useful to verify that our interpretation of something is reasonable, and it is useful in determining how our readers will interpret our articles.
I'm not certain I've correctly understood your objections, but how about:

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards the city despite the presence of the Israeli military headquarters, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
−
Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini wrote that "Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
+
Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrast how Israeli civilians are not treated as human shields for the Ministry Defense for Hamas rocket attacks, despite its location in the center of the city, and how, in "sharp contrast", Palestinian civilians are called human shields when Israeli bombs Hamas locations in Gaza, writing how this creates a paradigm that "if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
nableezy - 16:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of Hamas rockets are launched towards Tel Aviv to begin with? Drsmoo (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Drsmoo (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source here is literally the best one on the page lol. I’ll be returning it and referring tendentious editing elsewhere. nableezy - 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source by Gordon and Perugini is succinct and lucid and there is no need to blur it by a clumsy paraphrase. They are among the world authorities on the comparative use of human shields, and their ipsissima verba should stand for that reason. The first sentence here is a decidedly twisted POV, taking most sources commenting on 2023 as if it was a characteristic of the history of Hamas in its various conflicts, when down to and including 2014, as the meme made its hasbara rounds, independent authorities could find no conclusive proof for the charge, unlike the Israeli Supreme Court which found it was employed by the IDF (for decades). Regulars cannot but know all this since it is duly documented on the relevant pages Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amnesty

BilledMammal, the source says, in the following paragraph: The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields", does amount to a violation of their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular "avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. It also earlier says In particular, it found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve as "human shields". In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of "human shields" by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians. Even so, Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters were obliged at all times to apply the principle of distinction and proportionality, and take the precautions required by international humanitarian law, when launching attacks. It very clearly says that placing weapons and fighters in those areas are not evidence of using human shields. I also think that is arguably a 1RR violation, especially given the expansive definition you have sought to impose on others. nableezy - 16:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you see it as a revert, self-reverted.
What you say is wrote that while it is uncontested that Hamas weapons and fighters were located in civilian areas, that this does not itself constitute human shielding
This doesn't align with the source, which says While the presence of Hamas and other fighters and weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as “human shields”.
The first half aligns, but the second half does not; if you don't believe I can correct it without reverting can you do so? BilledMammal (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would except that isnt all the source says. As I quoted, it also says The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields". That is saying that just having combatants and weapons in the vicinity of civilians does not constitute, or is not evidence for, human shielding. nableezy - 16:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comparative scholars of this have done a far better job is stating what their conclusions are than these paraphrases. Drop it. It looks obfuscatory.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the source is making two slightly different claims; one says that this isn't evidence of use of human shields, and the second says this isn't conclusive evidence of intent to use human shields.
Is there some way we could include both of these claims in the sentence? I realize they are very similar, but it's the only explanation I can see that doesn't result in the source contradicting itself. BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Human shielding in international law requires the intent to to shield oneself with the civilian population. See where it documents Israeli usage of human shields, saying "The prohibition against the use of “human shields” is further clarified in Article 51(7) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I). It states: "Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operation". See also, for a more comprehensive overview of the topic, International Review of the Red Cross: The essential element in the prohibition on use of human shields is rather the intention to use the presence of humans as shields to shelter a military objective. This is corroborated by the International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes. nableezy - 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little prose I read, but particularly in this area, that doesn't lend itself to queries by a reader. We can't, for that, try and explain what might appear to be this or that or both except through other secondary sources which address the spefic source in question. To do so is to risk WP:OR-16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

In some respects this is cart before the horse, the purpose of these allegations is to relieve Israel of responsibility for civilian death and destruction when they kill civilians and destroy structures, when those civilians and structures are protected, by arguing that the death and destruction arises only because of Hamas alleged use of human shields. Even if some civilian structure was being used for a military purpose such that it lost protected status, any attack must be proportional to the military gain from attacking the otherwise protected object. Shielding must be "purposeful" Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lead

This is one of the worst leads I have read in my idk how long Ive been here. Im going to re-write it as an actual summary of the article, not a series of accusations. nableezy - 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about your concerns? Also, some people would find it a bit incivil the way you're denigrating the contributions of other Wikipedians, so let's keep it civil and focus on a constructive discussion. Everything on Wikipedia can be improved. Hamas uses human shields and it's a war crime. Let's start there. Andre🚐 05:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most flagrant in your face violation of NPOV I can remember in 17 years of editing wikipedia. 'Hamas uses human shields and it is a war crime'. Using human shields is a war crime. What we know is that Israel, adopting a practice instituted by the British mandatory Authority's army in 1936-1939. was condemned by its own Supreme Court in 2006 for its consistent use of Palestinians, even young men, as human shields in the occupied territories. In the immediate aftermath of that decision, as successive wars broke out, it began deploying this accusation, of which it was convicted, to account for the extremely high civilian 'collateral damage' emerging from its battle strategies in Gaza. Independent studies down through to 2014 could find no certain evidence that this formed part of Hamas's panoply of military techniques. A controversy exists based on whether the contested proximity of missile firing to civilian structures fits the technical definition of the war crime definition if using human shields or not. Informed opinion is divided. The lead is little more than a stacked summation of ISrael's POV, and totally ignores the controversial nature of these charges. Therefore it violates NPOV, and is little more than an inept dumbed down synthesis of cherry picked sources of the kind sponsored by one of the two protagonistsa of this tragedy. It is a public disgrace, and that experienced editors fail to see the problem suggests unfamiliarity, in the best reading, of one of the core pillars of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on matters of fact and substance, such as WP:FALSEBALANCE and whataboutism. WP:CONSENSUS will carry the day. I will caution you to focus on the abstract arguments, and refrain from personalizing the dispute by speculating as to editors' relative familiarity or time spent reading policy versus their experience, and descriptions like "disgraceful" are unproductive and disruptive. Nor does Israel's usage of 2006 or studies from 2014 affect whether in 2013, post 10/7-world, Hamas used human shields; regardless, your removal of text was overbroad and removed several RS as well. Now, we can discuss this, but please let's keep it civil, or we can start an RFC to solicit broader opinion if we're at an impasse. But I remind you that nobody owns the article and nobody is obliged to provide satisfaction. A my way or the highway approach won't get us anywhere. You clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV. You are entitled to that. But Wikipedia by consensus and by a preponderance of the reliable sources will determine what should appear in the article, and we cannot put our fingers on the scale where our sympathies may lie. Andre🚐 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories