Jump to content

Talk:2022 Gaza–Israel clashes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.64.76.29 (talk) at 17:03, 8 August 2022 (→Images and POV: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 5 August 2022

Operation Breaking Dawn → 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation – It is not NPOV to use names assigned by only one party to the conflict, better to follow the form established as in 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. Very recent and unclear how far escalation will go but the name must go meanwhile. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC) EDIT: The page was created by a non ecp editor. Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, as it stands, it is an even more reductive 2022 Israel–PIJ escalation - so far it appears to be almost entirely a series of attacks on PIJ personnel. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sakiv see my comment below. RS is referring to this as "Operation Breaking Dawn", which is the official name of this military operation. Whether or not war crimes are being committed is irrelevant. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: So you are literally adopting the Israeli narrative. Everyone knows who the Jerusalem Post belongs to.--Sakiv (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TJP is a reliable source for information. Also, just based on your comment of accusing me of "adopting the Israeli narrative", I am questioning any possible COI NPOV here as that appears to be coming from a biased standpoint that Israeli sources are not reliable for information about their military. If that is the case, I highly recommend you either (1), take it up at WP:RS or (2) excuse yourself from this requested move for a possible COI NPOV. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You only brought the Jerusalem Post as an example. It is not enough to be a reliable source. It must also be impartial. I also suspect that your vote is a conflict of interest.--Sakiv (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WRAL-TV & Las Vegas Sun (2 American news organizations) also have articles referring to Operation "Breaking Dawn". Please excuse yourself from this requested move as I do highly suggest COI NPOV now with 2 impartial accusations against myself. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Another response and I will report to you for harassment and impartiality. Two sources from two unknown sites will do the trick for you. Stop singling me out!--Sakiv (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I apologize for singling you out and for asking you to excuse yourself. In response to your statement of "Two sources from two unknown sites", the two sites I linked articles actually have articles: WRAL-TV & Las Vegas Sun, so they are not "unknown" sites. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I understand that what's happening now may cause some tension.--Sakiv (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do note, I did switch my !vote to support, but not for the same reason as you. I do still believe the reason for your !vote is wrong, but we still have overall viewpoint. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand the rationale for my vote. The operation does not target only Palestinian militants, most of the victims are unarmed civilians. As you know, Gaza has been under siege for 15 years, and there is no equivalence between the two sides. It's not about you and me. I don't want to go too far, why any incident in Ukraine is immediately stigmatized as a war crime without even an official investigation or evidence. Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever committed it.--Sakiv (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is @Sakiv committing WP:COI violations? Like I don't think that user is involved with what's happening in Palestine. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I used the wrong term. I meant WP:NPOV not COI. Either way, I am not singling them out anymore and focusing on the content rather than the editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Oppose - The Jerusalem Post said "Israel takes initiative and launches widescale attack on northern Gaza in Operation Breaking Dawn." as the first sentence of their article on the operation. The true name of this is Operation Breaking Dawn. Exact same reason we don't call Operation Overlord the "Battle of Normandy". Once it is named, that is the name, so there should be no reasons to change the title. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that since RS use it as the name of the operation, whether or not the title is changed, "Operation Breaking Dawn" will still be bolded in the lead because per WP:OR, we must use what RS say. In this case, RS call it an operation and not killing, so unless we want to break/make an exception through that rule, it must be present. Also, based on the link you showed below, IF we did ignore RS on the title, then I would still oppose this title suggested because this would be a killing and not a military operation (despite what RS say). Basically, my !vote will remain oppose to 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple, we don't use names given by one side, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Let's wait until the attack and the following tensions calm down, and if that doesn't happen soon, then we can rename it. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree that putting up an article for WP:RECENT events some hours old is a bit previous, regardless, the title is non NPOV now and that won't change no matter long we wait. Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some change - very clear NPOV violation in this naming, and the reasons for that are laid out at MILMOS. Using one of the combatants favored framing is a clear NPOV violation. nableezy - 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Addendum, Im fine with Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022) as offered below. nableezy - 23:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if anything it should be changed to 2022 Israel-Gaza escalationMidrashah (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most RS are framing this as an escalation following the arrest earlier in the week of Bassam al-Saadi, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in West Bank on 1 August. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    eg NYT "The escalation followed one of the least violent phases in Gaza for several years. Both Israel and Hamas, the militant group that runs Gaza, had previously signaled they wanted to avoid another full-scale war over the enclave, which has been under an Israeli and Egyptian blockade since 2007. Since May 2021, there have been relatively few cross-border exchanges of fire, as tensions shifted to the occupied West Bank and Israel itself. But over the past week, the possibility of a new conflict in Gaza re-emerged — this time not with Hamas, but with Islamic Jihad. Israel arrested one of Islamic Jihad’s senior commanders in the West Bank this week, leading to threats of reprisal from its Gaza leadership."
    AJ "Israel’s deadly attacks came after Israeli forces arrested Bassam al-Saadi, a senior member of the armed group, earlier in the week. Al-Saadi was detained during an Israeli raid in the West Bank city of Jenin, during which a teenager was killed." Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support; for two reasons: 1. The present name is a POV violation, 2. the suggested name is far more informative (can anyone here remember the names of all the Israeli military operations? I certainly cannot), Huldra (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would also support a mv to 2022 Gaza-Israel clashes (or Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022), or equivalent. If the the conflict spreads to the West Bank, then we could mv it to "Palestine-Israel" etc. What is important now, it to mv it away from a hopelssly partisan name, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* COMMENT While using the Israeli's name for the current conflict is not the best option here, escalation carries its own NPOV issues, and appears to be used by a Hamas spokesman at one point, further raising NPOV concerns.
Nameomcnameface (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy."[reply]
  • Support - the move to something else since the current title is unacceptable from the NPOV point of view. I’m not entirely sure if the target title is the most suitable choice, however. Nevertheless, I would select the proposed title over the current one. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is not the only escalation in the conflict this year. Since March 2022 a wave of attacks against Israelis has taken place in the region (accompanied by following IDF raids in the West Bank), see Category:Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2022 and Shireen Abu Aqleh. This wave of violence actually has articles in three other languages. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afaics, there is no need to disambiguate on English Wikipedia so this objection has no merit. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comemnt The unwillingness to name the agressor in the proposed title heavily contrasts with others choises such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is a bombardment initiated by Israel, if anything, it should be named as such. User:JoaquimCebuano — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Non ecp editor not permitted to comment here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The proposed title is more or less what I searched to find this page. Use of operation names has always been contentious, and I have always been a strong opponent of them for NPOV reasons, and because I doubt that these are what readers such as myself will key. Every article with an operation name as its title inevitably gets multiple rename discussions; some of them get moved, some of them don't, so I can't really say there's a strong precedent-based argument for or against these names. The criticisms of the term "escalation" are heard, and I'd be okay with exploring other alternatives, but I still support moving to the proposed title over the current operational title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The descriptive name is not natural and as this operation is developing is not stable, it may turn out to be a full war for instance. It is also problematic because of previous events in 2022, the terror wave by PIJ against Israeli civilians earlier in the year. Operation names are used in other similar articles like Operation Claw-Eagle 2, Operations Claw-Lightning and Thunderbolt, or Operation Martyr Yalçın. The operation name is a natural name that makes finding the specific operation easier.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Agree with Huldra. NPOV. Niles Anderssøn 🟡 (talk) 🔵 Слава Україні 08:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy."[reply]

  • Support a change of title. Since neither Gazans nor the ruling authority Hamas have, so far, anything to do with this, and since Israel itself says that it is a 'premptive' operation against one single militant group inside the Gaza Strip, any neutral title should clarify that it is a clash between Israel and the Islamic Jihad organization, not bedtween Israel and Gaza or Palestine, that took place in August 2022. The difficulty is in the declared 'preemptive' operation, which means that here we have so far no details of the usual kind in every conflict article about Israel being 'provoked' and thereafter initiating a 'response.' Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The crisis in 2021 is also named this way, and not "Operation Guardian of the Walls". It's more neutral to change the name. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I oppose the current title, I think the proposed title is a little too generic. I suggest a slightly more specific title, such as 2022 Israel-Islamic Jihad conflict, which is a little more concise and a little more specific. 3skandar (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect there will be additional RMs regardless of what happens here, the primary thing is whether one considers the current title NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Support per NPOV. 103.141.159.228 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The operation name is clear, concise, and is the primary topic. It is also neutral. The suggested title of 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation is not specific somehow linking this to Palestine entirely, and this operation isn't even the primary topic for escalations in 2022, as an example the BBC in April reported: "Israel has been rocked by a wave of attacks which have killed 14 people." PrisonerB (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our MOS for military conflicts says all of those things are not true. That it is not clear and it is not neutral. That it gives no indication of where and when this occurred, and that the framing represents a specific POV. Your entire !vote is directly refuted by our policies and guidelines. Every !vote that has opposed a move has done so without even a vague wave toward our policies. nableezy - 16:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't like the work "escalation" very much, but the Israeli operation name is so obviously POV that it isn't an option consistent with policy. Zerotalk 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV

A less POV description of these very recent events is available at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022. The editing, together with the non NPOV name, are unacceptable. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the POV problem? The Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine is a designated terrorist organization all over the free world. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grandiose names for military operations such as killings/assassinations, until such a time as they pass into the history books, are just euphemistic titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of Osama bin Laden is just the Killing of Osama bin Laden, that just so happens to be code-named "Operation Neptune Spear" by the US. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same argument in 2021 with pro Israeli editors trying to name 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis as Operation Guardian of the Walls, the IDF name for their operation and now a redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Selfstudier is removing link to this article from Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022, see talk page there. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it's an unbalanced stub ... if you want to redress this, and have time on your hands, please feel free to expand it from the Arabic version. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to expand this article and make it balanced, editors need to know that it exists. How does removing links to it helps in changing it from being an unbalanced stub? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. There is a clear NPOV dispute here, removing the tag requires consensus when that is under discussion. B. framing the events as a military operation and not an extrajudicial killing is non-neutral. You cant simply take one sides framing and adopt it as Wikipedia's. nableezy - 22:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content is reasonable at this point though. The title not as much. nableezy - 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF is an army, so the killing was a military operation. The only question is whether it was extrajudicial, but I'm not sure that that term is relevant here. 3skandar (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A targeted assassination is in essence, extrajudicial.Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with 3skandar. To term an operation conducted by a military as a "military operation" is not POV-charged, nor is it mutually exclusive with the term extrajudicial, nor should we focus on using the term extrajudicial. Take the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani as an example - was that an extrajudicial killing? Unquestionably; the UN concluded that it "likely violated international law". Even then, its Wikipedia article doesn't ever use Wikipedia's voice to say that it was an "extrajudicial killing." It's just not a term that we use often to my knowledge.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

What exactly are the main POV issues that need to be addressed before it would be appropriate to remove the orange tag? (Asking in a fresh sub-heading because the above discussion is not structured enough to realistically expect much to come of it)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title and the framing of the conflict as Israel attacking the PIJ and not attacking Gaza. nableezy - 00:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title is under discussion, but as for the framing of the conflict as Israel attacking the PIJ and not attacking Gaza, the opening sentence states that Israel launched airstrikes on Gaza. I'm not sure I understand what you want to see changed with regard to that. Listing Gaza itself as a combatant wouldn't make sense, both because it's a location and not a polity, and because Gaza's governing entity (Hamas) is not a belligerent. The discussion below in your "combatants" thread suggests that the status quo is more agreeable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue is the clear POV pushing in using only material selected for use by the IDF in the media. We now have 3 propaganda pieces in this article, with users continuing to add more. nableezy - 14:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

combatants

placing the PIJ as the combatant here is a POV violation, it is portraying Israel's framing as an attack on PIJ as fact. Sources are reporting Israel attacked the Gaza Strip, so either State of Palestine or Gaza Strip should be placed as the combatant. Ditto for commander, hard to say somebody assassinated in his sleep was "in action", and he wasnt a commander for Gaza in any way. nableezy - 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his sleep? The strike was a bit after 4 pm local time. He was commanding anti-tank squads from his hidden location. Gaza Strip isn't a combatant so far, the Hamas is staying out of the fighting so far. -----Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy (As for now) The conflict is strictly between the PIJ and Israel. Hamas has stated their will to stay out.I believe it is wiser to address the PIJ as such and distinguish the rest of the terrorists organisations with their great differences. 2A06:C701:9C72:C500:55C1:2907:215B:F503 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the conflict is not just between the PIJ and Israel. The 21:23 update to the article points out that Gaza Strip is also being attacked. This is a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, not just the PIJ as you seem to want to frame it as. And I would suggest you learn how to respond to comments here instead of just repeating yourself. 3skandar (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the Gaza Strip is the location, not the belligerent, correct? The Gaza Strip is not itself a political entity, so it would not be appropriate to list it as such. Yes, this is part of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, as opposed to simply being an Israel-PIJ conflict, and the attacks took place on the Gaza Strip, and the casualties were largely non-combatant Palestinian citizens as opposed to the PIJ. But the article already states all of this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it to Palestine. But this framing of Israel performing some surgical strike against PIJ targets but somehow not attacking Gaza is literally Israel's POV. And it is not how non-Israeli sources are largely reporting it. nableezy - 01:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do state that Israel's strikes are attacking Gaza, though. To reiterate, this is what the very first sentence of the article says. I'm assuming you're referring to the infobox and not the actual text of the article?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the infobox. nableezy - 02:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the infobox in a way that you may find agreeable. I personally believe that the previous version was more accurate as it currently implies that the PIJ is necessarily part of the Palestinian government or military as opposed to being an independent militant organization acting in the name of the Palestinian cause, but this format is what the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis page did, so there's precedent for this. Hopefully this satisfies some of the POV concerns.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats better yes. nableezy - 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of the casualties were combatants, so it's really not "casualties were largely non-combatants". Also, the fact that innocent people get killed doesn't make them the target - PIJ's misfired rockets killed a bunch of innocent Gazan civilians, I don't suppose you would describe the PIJ as attacking Gaza. The operation was most clearly a fight between the State of Israel and the PIJ, with the sovereign of Gaza, Hamas, not taking part. Any description of the conflict as an attack against Gaza wouldn't be NPOV. 80.178.95.33 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, reliable sources routinely refer to Gaza being attacked. NPOV is determined by the sources, not by what some random person on the internet wants to say. And where are you even getting the material on 2/3 of the casualties were combatants? That isnt borne out by any source, with it being reported almost half the dead civilians, and I see no reporting on the injured being mostly combatants either. Just making things up is not an acceptable practice here. nableezy - 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunutubble why did you remove the Palestinian flag? nableezy - 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources specifying Israel attacked Gaza: The Economist: The latest Israeli offensive against Gaza , Al Jazeera: since Israel began attacking Gaza on Friday. Let me know if youd like more. nableezy - 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Change Category:Battles in 2022 to Category:2022 airstrikes; this was an airstrike rather than a battle. UncleBourbon (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening strike was an airstike, but it was followed up by rocket fire from Gaza and arrests in the West Bank which are not airstrikes. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2022 airstrikes added. Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli casualties

3 Israelis wounded. On TV as of now, looking for a source. Lilijuros (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bj0sm9o6c 79.180.38.101 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added to infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The stated aim by Israel was to attack the PIJ" is not correct nor neutral

This isn't the stated aim, this is the action that the IDF is doing. The original aim of the operation was to prevent an imminent borser attack by PIJ after the group explicitely stated it will do so following the arrest of a PIJ senior in the Jenin refugee camp. 2A03:C5C0:107B:A547:85CB:4436:4AB6:52C9 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per ToI "The IDF was engaged in “a targeted campaign against PIJ,” spokesman Kochav said repeatedly in his TV interview, and military officials made the same point in media briefings." I added this quote to clarify the aim. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

statistics

For example: yesterday, The IDF reports that a volley of 80 rockets was fired into Israel. 46 reached the territory of the country and 33 were intercepted. At every escalation, the organizations in Gaza fire rockets. Some of them reach the territory of Israel and the others land in the territory of the Gaza Strip. The matter is not often mentioned. https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ 15:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier2A00:A040:184:2F80:BCFF:D366:8378:2781 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blog is not a RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, IT IS NOT BLOG. It (https://www.zman.co.il/330486/popup/) is live news, such as https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/ . More sources: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 . today (18:15): "In total, more than 400 rockets have been fired at Israel so far, about 100 of which fell in the Gaza Strip, most of the rest were intercepted by Iron Dome or fell in open areas..." https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001420547 --2A00:A040:184:2F80:5069:3F2F:F831:5694 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EDITREQ / Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

statistics


  • What I think should be changed:

For example: yesterday, The IDF reports that a volley of 80 rockets was fired into Israel. 46 reached the territory of the country and 33 were intercepted. At every escalation, the organizations in Gaza fire rockets. Some of them reach the territory of Israel and the others land in the territory of the Gaza Strip. https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ --2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why it should be changed:

The matter is not often mentioned. it influence the operation.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

More sources: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 . today (18:15): "In total, more than 400 rockets have been fired at Israel so far, about 100 of which fell in the Gaza Strip, most of the rest were intercepted by Iron Dome or fell in open areas..." https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001420547 https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2022_q3/Article-35f83d6b9447281026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier 2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sky (an RS) Today 20:45 UK "Palestinian militants have retaliated by firing at least 200 rockets at Israel" Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC) ToI 350 rockets AJ Over 400 We should wait for consistent reports. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, It is possible to note the statistics of the first day where there is more consistent reports.https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-estimates-that-pij-fired-80-rockets-at-israel-after-terror-group-said-it-launched-100/ https://twitter.com/barakravid/status/1555626542037958662 2A00:A040:184:2F80:B9D1:889E:5C2C:60CB (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will let someone else decide about it, please wait for an editor to review your request. Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion general statistics are useful. Obviously the rocket launch numbers are increasing day to day. However, sources are covering the high failure rate. The Washington Post says that a third (out of 449, when they were writing) of the rocket launches by Palestinians fell inside Gaza. This is a significant amount of explosives falling on Gazan homes, being fired by Gazan themselves.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

first day


  • What I think should be changed:

firt attack at the operration.

  • Why it should be changed:

At the same time as Jabri was killed, the deputy commander of the anti-tank formation of the Islamic Jihad, Abdullah Kadum, was also killed, two squads he commanded were on their way to carry out an attack using an anti-tank missile. The head of the observation array in the northern Gaza Strip was also killed in the attack, which lasted less than three minutes.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://news.walla.co.il/item/3522509 2A00:A040:184:2F80:B9D1:889E:5C2C:60CB (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem particularly notable.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources disagree with this framing. Not done. nableezy - 15:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media: The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya

The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya.[1]

Please add this media file.

[[File:The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya.webm|thumb|The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, killing Palestinian civilians, including children.<ref>{{Cite web |title=IDF publishes video of alleged deadly rocket misfire in Gaza |url=https://www.rt.com/news/560394-israel-idf-video-strike-missile-gaza/ |access-date=2022-08-07 |website=RT International |language=en}}</ref>]]

Thank you, —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 13:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this video shows a misfire but not the killing of Palestinians. BBC and Al Jazeera say they have not been able to independently confirm that (I assume they have seen this video). Do you have a reliable independent source (RT is not reliable) confirming that this video proves the killings? Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A pinch, just for example, that shows that even quality sources that are considered very neutral (not necessarily objective) write that:
  • “The fatal strike occurred an hour and 10 minutes after Israel’s last activity in the area, a spokesman said, while aerial reconnaissance images and intelligence findings show the trajectory of a rocket launched from an Islamic Jihad location.” --WP.[2]
  • “Israel said some of those children were killed on Saturday night when an Islamic Jihad rocket misfired and fell short in the northern Gaza Strip. The Israeli military said it had not been operating in that area at the time. Islamic Jihad has not commented on the Israeli claim.”--NYT...[3]
. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our article already reports the Israeli claim. That's not what I asked, I asked whether you have a source confirming that the video proves that the misfire killed Palestinians. The caption on that video says "The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, killing Palestinian civilians, including children" Says who? Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I understand. We can add the media with the caption:
    “The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, which according to the IDF killed Palestinian civilians, including children.”
*“Our article”? Seriously and respectfully, please change the wording to “The article” (WP:OWN...)
Thank you, 🙏🙂 —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 14:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, our article already reports the claim as well as the fact that it has not been independently verified. The video adds nothing to that. If the caption is changed to "Video of a misfiring rocket" then perhaps it can be used but I will let someone else decide about that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“PIJ's misfiring rocket in Jabaliya” is possible for me, but it should be taken into account that it does not present the full explanation of the claims regarding that specific launch.
*Thank you for ignoring my request to give up the oppressive feeling of possessiveness of the articles. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@מקף: thank you for uploading this video which has been shown by media outlets from all around the world and illustrates Palestinian misfires very well.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video added to the article contains an unproven unreferenced claim by the IDF and with no reference to the fact that the claim has not been independently verified. You may wish to self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, a reference has now been added, notice that the reference says "alleged" misfire. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire sentence has "according to the IDF" on it.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the section as POV. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We saw...
We saw that even though the entire article was already tagged, you also tagged this paragraph, despite the double edification in the caption of the video, which makes it crystal clear that the IDF published and the IDF said. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why above. I suggest we let other editors opine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of the PIJ's reaction only because simply "Islamic Jihad has not commented on the Israeli claim" (--NYT). —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This failture happend today, [[1]]. you can add.(2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is another PIJ rocket failure, which also killed Palestinian children. There was more than one lethal rocket failure by the PIJ, including one yesterday and some today. MathKnight 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there were more then one failtures, i mean. i offer to add the other regardless of the discussion 2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This other faiture was publish at ynet. It https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/skpgacta5 04:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no nothing wrong with the addition of the IDF video and the paragraph accompanying it. Various media sources confirmed IDF report. MathKnight 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already absurdly skewed in the imagery used. I oppose yet another IDF propaganda piece being prominently displayed in this article. nableezy - 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "IDF publishes video of alleged deadly rocket misfire in Gaza". RT International. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
  2. ^ "Militants keep firing rockets at Israel as strikes in Gaza kill at least 24". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
  3. ^ Kershner, Isabel (2022-08-07). "Israel Live Updates: Mediators Push for Cease-Fire in Gaza Fighting". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
There's nothing wrong with inclusion if per NPOV we provide the statistics about IDF missile strikes. Usually in this war reportage, a huge amount of attention is given to the number of 'firecracker' rockets (as they are often called) fired towards Israel (most with little technical chances of hitting any target beyond the desert). The media generally counts Hamas/PIJ firings meticulously, - as if numbers were the decisive fact, not the lethal (in)capacity of the missiles used - with no accountancy of how many IDF rockets were fired unerringly into Gaza's built up areas over the same period. The bias, and silence regarding what the other side is shooting, is where such sections show decided imbalance. So, if someone can source how many missiles and bombs were dropped on the Strip by the IDF, how many of the casualties were caused by them, with accompanyuing photos, then this pic re PIJ backfiring and killing Gazans can be appropriately contextualized per NPOV. If not, then its inclusion alone simply means: 'civilians in Gaza are killed more by Palestinian rocket engineers' incompetence than by the highly competent rocket scientists the IDF relies on (whose expertise still leads to massive civilian casualties).Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a concerted effort to emphasize the possibility that a failed rocket launch led to some civilian casualties (including children). Since the major press are being rather cautious in picking this up, the current "messaging" is that it is not only Jabalia but in other places as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video is of obvious relevance. This isn't "messaging", misfires haves been captured on video, including video by pro-Hezbollah Al Mayadeen. Bild has reported that the deaths were caused by a rocket launched by Islamic Jihad terrorists. PrisonerB (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ToI thinks it is messaging "Israeli messaging on deadly Jabaliya explosion makes inroads on international media". Nor is anyone disputing that there were misfires. Bild is WP:GUNREL at WP:RSP Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video has been readded against consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it please, WP:ONUS is not optional in an article with discretionary sanctions. This clear POV-push of attempting to turn this article in to a piece produced by te Israeli MFA violates our standard discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If there is secondary source references to the messaging point used by the IDF it should eventually be added. In war every side prevaricates or lies to win the public eye, and editors must assess material in awareness of this. Wikipedia is not a playground where the facts are overlaid by the manipulations they are subject to in press releases by all parties to a conflict.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be balance in the images too, you cant push a narrative that is non-NPOV through the images in a page. nableezy - 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong local time for truce

At the end of the intro it says "A truce has been provisionally agreed to go into effect as of 20:00 (1900 GMT) 7 August, 2022." This is incoherent; 1900 GMT is 10pm in the middle east (22:00). I would fix it, but it's locked. The correct time is 22:00 local time (1900 GMT). Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egyptian-mediators-propose-gaza-truce-1900-gmt-source-says-2022-08-07/ Cheers. Drbobpgh (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, This is the the true agreeed tine https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2022_q3/Article-b3831b055c47281026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802 2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket failure during Al-Jazira's Broadcast

Please add this media

[[File:Failed launch of PIJ missile in Gaze strikes urban area 2022-08-07.webm|thumb| PIJ missile failure hits Gazan urban area during live broadcast]]

File:Failed launch of PIJ missile in Gaze strikes urban area 2022-08-07.webm
PIJ missile failure hits Gazan urban area during live broadcast

Kuketski (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps later, a picture from the "other side" would be better at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty relevant media. You are wrong about this being Al-Jazira, it is Al Mayadeen. PrisonerB (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to what? The question of including "misfire" media is already being discussed above. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be removed, and the editor reinserting it without consensus should read WP:ONUS. This is not a propaganda piece of the MFA, we have 3 images released by one of the combatants in this article. nableezy - 13:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the imagery from the other side, isn't it what you've wanted? Kuketski (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its also a clear COPYVIO. nableezy - 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background rocket attacks

The fact that PIJ used rocket attacks against Israel prior to the operation is a key factor that is not mentioned yet. Bageralg (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source? All reporting so far says that Israel acted preemptively. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and losses

why are the 2 Israeli wounded called IDF when the attached article seems to say they were in their HOMES? 213.8.65.165 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source says later on that two soldiers were wounded by mortar fire. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images and POV

See for example NYTimes showing the balance in imaging. There is a clear POV push in using images released by Israel as part of its propaganda campaign in this article. We currently have 3 images/videos showing only what Israel would like people to see. Not the widespread devastation of its hundreds of missile strikes, but damage to an apartment in Israel, and one of the comparably minute number of Palestinian rockets that landed within Gaza. This is absurd and it is an abuse of Wikipedia and its policies and it is a violation of the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A third of the Palestinian missiles fell inside Gaza, hundreds. It is significant. There's room in the article for more images, if images showing damage in Gaza are uploaded to Commons they can be added. PrisonerB (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats according to the IDF, and the damage from the rockets is insignificant compared to the damage from the IDF missiles. You are violating WP:ONUS and WP:TE and I am of a mind to report it. nableezy - 14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent media has covered it. If you have a source comparing IDF inflicted uninvolved casualties to PIJ inflicted uninvolved casualties that would be a good addition. However you slice it, given then high percentage of missiles falling into Gaza itself and the high interception rate by Iron Dome of Palestinian missiles arriving at Israeli population centers, the amount of damage inflicted inside Gaza by Palestinian missiles is much larger than the damage inflicted inside Israel. DW.COM says that "Twelve of those in Gaza were killed by misfired rockets in Gaza, Islamic Jihad said." That's a significant proportion of the casualties. PrisonerB (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamic Jihad said 12 of those killed were militants" Maybe wait a bit and see if we can get confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC piece covers misfired rockets as well. PrisonerB (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does but not in the same way, the DW is probably a misquote, let's just wait and see, if they said it, then the major news outlets will pick it up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added it anyway? Seems a bit impatient. I tagged it ftb, till we get confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DW carries AFP/AP attribution, I haven't found it there or anywhere else as yet. I have found many quotes similar to ABC otoh. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are essays, not guidelines. PrisonerB's editing and stance have been per the sources, anyway. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, nope. WP:ONUS is policy, and WP:TE is an explanatory essay about another policy, WP:DE, which is referenced repeatedly in the arbitration decision. The sources do not support the idea that all the damage in this has come to Israel or from faulty Palestinian rockets, and that is an absurd claim to make. See, again, the NYT images. See how the balance of destruction is shown in actual sources. And not propaganda pieces released by the IDF. nableezy - 14:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't you locating some Palestinian images, without copyright issues, uploading them, and posting them to the article? No one disagreed so far for an image addition from the Palestine side. The IDF video belongs because many media pieces contain it. Other images, from the Palestinian side, also belong if you can get them uploaded without copyright issue. PrisonerB (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Palestinians dont have a government agency dedicated to promulgating its propaganda by releasing images with the explicit aim of their being used to further its interests. That Israel does that does not relieve you of the requirement to edit according to WP:NPOV and all aspect of this article, including the imaging, must abide by that core requirement. nableezy - 15:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel does have a government agency to promote its propaganda, then they are doing really crappy job. Media-field is dominated by media images from Palestinians and overall sentiment is that Israel is guilty by default.
This claim goes both ways, all militant groups in Gaza are investing heavily into the PR. And even here, on Wikipedia I see people twisting news to make them look worse for Israel.
Why do you claim that Israeli strikes did more damage than Gazan missiles falling short of the border? Based on which report? Previous investigations made by american military assessment NGOs showed that Israel is making unprecedented measures to limit number of victims.
Hamas and Gazan Police on the other hand are employing kids to assist in dragging out faulty Al-Quassams out of the urban centers Kuketski (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Based on things like the NYT showing the wide devastation of Gaza's infrastructure. The rest of your comment belong on a forum, not Wikipedia. Please review WP:NOTFORUM before continuing. nableezy - 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being neutral! Look at my contributions history. Last year I was in conflict with nableezy the antisemite and various other Wikipedians. nableezy is expressing their antisemitism bias clearly, you can also see this by how they claim Israeli primary sources to be "propaganda" and outright bashing anyone who doubts the illegitimacy of Israeli primary sources, and you can see it by their threats that they are "of a mind to report [violating WP:ONUS and WP:TE (14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC))]", and such. Primary sources are great for providing citations for claims made by sources, to compensate for imprecise interpretations by secondary sources, and secondary sources are great to compensate for bias in primary sources. Outright claiming that the IDF is pushing propaganda ("communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information"). I wish there could be a way to report nableezy and block them for their deliberate racism and disinformation. Their conduct is not at all civil, I've experienced it myself last year. But there's nothing I can do regarding them. Furthermore, as it became apparent to me last year, there are ArbCom sanctions preventing me from participating in editing since I'm not registered. nableezy: You wanna block me? Go on and do it you antisemite. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ther problem with this page is not the images, but the incapacity of editors to focus on the facts, which are the only thing which should interest us. I.e. writing, unlike the mess and repetition we have, what happened when, in chronological sequence, with as much factual detail and precision as can be mustered. The obsession with images reflects the idea that a story is told via snippety impressions rather than by the objective data. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the problem, but it certainly is one problem. nableezy - 15:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps I misphrased that. Making images the centerpiece of the article is wrong. To do so is to engage in a media manipulative game that trumps clear historical narrative. Wikipedia must stress the facts, not play into images that, by their nature, tend to lend themselves to abuse. That rockets misfire and kill one's own through friendly fire occurs in every war, and often in that enclave. If an Israeli or Western power kills its own via technical failure, all reports will announce it as tragic friendly fire. If this happens with any adversary, the word 'friendly fire' is noticeable for its absence from mainstream reports, which prefer to use the incident to blame the 'militants' for even the casualties the invading armies cause. The only way to avoid this manipulative gaming of readers' thinking is to concentrate on the factual details, as I have often argued in similar earlier articles, and leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using a video for a minority of the damage and casualties, on top of it being the third (!) piece of Israeli propaganda included in here, is non-neutral. I agree the text matters, but you are understating the importance of imagery. It is why Israel releases these videos, because they know it furthers their hasbara goals. Ignoring that isnt either a good idea or following NPOV. nableezy - 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not break neutrality if NPOV shows that launching garage-made unguided missiles from densely-populated urban areas is dangerous regardless of which side launches them. Kuketski (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It violates NPOV to insert 3 propaganda pieces by a combatant in an armed conflict while not showing the widespread and widely reported damage by that combatant. nableezy - 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Gaza–Israel_clashes&oldid=1103178896"