Jump to content

Talk:2012 Gaza War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.122.215.2 (talk) at 18:14, 19 November 2012 (→Edit request - damaged references: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Infobox (everything about the infobox goes here)

At some point, it may be useful to insert {{infobox military conflict}}. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added by LuK3 --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says 70+ Israeli civilians were killed, but there is no source given. ypnypn (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone deleted it. ypnypn (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whats the point of protecting the article if the citations still arent used properly? since yesterday a new citation is used for palestinian casualties, which are now claimed at 19 combatants and 19 civilians by wikipedia, but the citation doesn't say that, it says: "Officials in Gaza said 41 Palestinians, nearly half of them civilians including eight children and a pregnant woman, had been killed since Israel began its air strikes. Three Israeli civilians were killed by a rocket on Thursday."

19+19=38, so wikipedia provides only one source on palestinian casualties for the infobox and contradicts that source by deciding EXACTLY how many dead were combatants and civilians when the source isn't exact AND by deleting three of the casualties (for no apparent reason)

try again, wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Up to 75,000" in the Info Box's Strength of Israel force is incorrect. The source points that Israeli government confirmed the drafting of up to 75,000 reservists. The IDF active force is much larger. According to the Wikipedia article of IDF it is 176,500. So the Info Box should say "176,500 active and up to 75,000 reservists". Someone with editing privileges please fix this. 109.186.109.222 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell you are correct, so I've updated it to indicate this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And also in the infobox, the strength for the combatants 2 parameter might be slightly off. The article was published by the Israeli government in 2007. Just a heads up to anybody who wants to find more recent numbers. -- Luke (Talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The infobox map ignores rocket attacks on israeli cities. Would it not be possible to include a second image or edit the first to have an additional map showing the different levels of rocket fire into israel? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the conflict is no about the gaza strip. I have changed the map, it now show both gaza and the areas of the conflict mentioned in the article(I dont want to spam the article with two iamges, so i didn't add them both, but in case some decide it is needed here is the previous map)--Mor2 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, The image in the info box is not completely accurate as rockets (Fajr-5) have fallen as far away as Southern Jerusalem and the Etzion Block. I would recommend changing it to this image from the BBC http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64164000/gif/_64164468_hamas_rockets464x458.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.199.10 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox image has been removed

The infobox image has been removed due to it being up for deletion for copyright issues. [1] can someone please make a similar image if they are able? Showing the range of rocket attacks like that one? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not as good as the previous one, but this is the best I could do File:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense.png --Mor2 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time, that is far better than no image at all and shows the basics still. 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article name (everything about the article name goes here)

Name of operation

Why have some sources translated Amud Annan as a pillar of defence? Is this a mistake? Ankh.Morpork 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF Official uses the name. Poliocretes (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Hebrew native speaker, and yes it means (lit.) Pillar of Cloud (עמוד ענן). In some Israeli news outlets it was translated "Pillar of Cloud" [2] and some as "pillar of defence"[3] [4]. However, both are mentioned at the begging of the article. And since the IDF website uses the term, as Poliocretes mentioned it should be "Pillar of Cloud". --Midrashah (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the official Hebrew name of the operation is עמוד ענן (Pillar of Cloud literally). However, the English name is "Pillar of Defense" as used by IDF (on twitter for example: https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson). I'd support a move to "Operation Pillar of Defense". Merrybrit (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The only real meaning of "anan" in Hebrew is cloud. On the other hand, English-language Israeli media are using Pillar of Defense.[5][6] --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should really be moved to Pillar of Defense. Remember that we use the most common English name, not the English translation of the most common foreign language name. This press release from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "Pillar of Defense". So does the New York Times, [Israel Today, and many other US and Israeli news agencies. A google search for Operation Pillar of Defense yields 14.5 million results and a similar one for Operation Pillar of Cloud yields 3.59 million. (Take the google search results with a grain of salt, but I still think there's enough to change the title). Ryan Vesey 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should wikipedia subdue to Israeli war propaganda? It is obvious why they use word defense instead of cloud when doing PR with Western media. The proper name is Pillar of cloud. The purpose of the name is to evoke fear and destruction - a smoking pile of ruins. Also it is a could which guides the Jewish people so the semantic purpose behind this is that bombing residential areas somehow expresses Jewish beliefs and people so that people of Israel could identify themselves with it. Defense was included to make the operation look as if it was defense and mitigate religious aspects of the name when presented internationally. of course that google search acommodated to the new PR name because all Western media did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.137 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~Asarlaí 23:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Operation Pillar of Cloud → Operation Pillar of Defense – (Copied from my comment above)
We use the most common English name, not the English translation of the most common foreign language name. This press release from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "Pillar of Defense". So does the New York Times, [Israel Today, and many other US and Israeli news agencies. A google search for Operation Pillar of Defense yields 14.5 million results and a similar one for Operation Pillar of Cloud yields 3.59 million. (Take the google search results with a grain of salt, but I still think there's enough to change the title). Ryan Vesey 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the official name Pillar of Cloud in Hebrew ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but per WP:COMMONNAME we use the common name in English language sources. The official name in Hebrew doesn't matter. The article would mention the Hebrew name and the English translation for that, but the title should be the English name. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of official sources (scroll above to view) are using Pillar of Cloud, as per the official name of the operation. That is to say: It is not just the quantity of sources, but the quality. Unflavoured (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only consider the name(s) used by official sources. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, Google News generates far more results for "Gaza offensive" [9]. Perhaps, per WP:commonname, after this move, we move the article to 2012 Gaza offensive? Not all operation articles need to have official names. See Normandy landings. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Operation Pillar of Defense" seems like the most appropriate title. I suggest that this move take place shortly rather than wait the 7 days. It appears to be an uncontroversial move to a more accurate title. Seen as this is a massive story it should not be at the wrong name for days. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better to do one move at a time, the current title is clearly not a good one. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose that proposed title. This is a situation involving attacks on Israel too not just Gaza, so the "Gaza offensive" is not an all encompassing title either. Also 2012 Gaza Conflict would be more neutral and probably the most widely used of those two proposals. We should make the basic move of this article to the correct official title of the operation.. which appears to have support. Then immediately start a full discussion on a wider change of the article title/scope. If we did make this current proposed move (to defense rather than cloud, i do totally agree that it should not be seen as justification for no additional move to a wider title afterwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support that is a more neutral title than the current one --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 'Assault on Gaza'? There are various names circulating in Palestinian circles, of which that is the most neutral. I see no reason to use on side's nomenclature over the other's. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name is dependent on how we frame the article as a whole. What is our frame of reference? If we mean to say that the assassination of Jabari is the beginning of this conflict, then the military operation is probably appropriate as a name, in which case it should match the most common English name in secondary sources (Operation Pillar of Defense). However, if we want to place it in a larger context of recent exchange of fire, we could expand the time frame all the way into October (see background section in article). At that point, we'd have to make it something like "October–November 2012 Gaza Conflict." We will probably have to wait a little while to see what actually happens with this conflict, and if a larger time scale is appropriate. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could take it back months and months, because the conflict between Israel and Gaza is constant. But that would be silly. We alredy hav' two articles about the constant tit-for-tat between Israel and Gaza. It's better to hav' a focused article about a particular military operation than an unfocused one about months and months of tit-for-tat. ~Asarlaí 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. My point is that our frame of reference for the title must also match up with what's in the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In regards to anything related to Gaza offensive and assault on Gaza and similar things. I haven't seen any reliable sources referring to the name of this as the Gaza offensive. It is a Gaza offensive so it is likely that there will be many sources talking about the Gaza offensive; however WP:COMMONNAME doesn't tell us to use the most common description of the subject, it tells us to use the most common name. A similar thing would be President Clinton. His official name is William Clinton, his common name is Bill Clinton, but he is also commonly referred to as President Clinton. We use Bill Clinton because it is the most common term used to name him. (Note that this is my interpretation and I'm certainly open to someone's point if they feel mine is wrong). Ryan Vesey 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add a little bit of support to my statement that Gaza offensive is used as a reference not as a name, note this Reuters article. It refers to it as the "Gaza offensive" (note that offensive is lowercase so it is not a title) it also mentions that it was Operation Pillar of Defense. A blog from Foreign Policy Magazine does the same. The Daily Beast refers to it as an Offensive in Gaza in the title of the article and uses the lowercased offensive when mentioning the operation in the article. This source, although it uses Pillar of Cloud rather than Pillar of Defense, uses the lowercased offensive. The Times uses lowercase offensive as does Haaretz (which also uses Pillar of Defense). Ryan Vesey 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Operation Pillar of Defense" is the one being used on the IDF website. It also gets more Google hits than both "Operation Pillar of Cloud" and "Gaza offensive" (remember to search from 14 November 2012 onward). I think we should avoid vague names like "Gaza offensive" or "Gaza conflict". Israel has launcht other offensives in Gaza this year. This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. Using the IDF name doesn't make us "pro-Israeli" (likewize, calling an article Operation Barbarossa or Operation Overlord doesn't mean we're taking sides) . ~Asarlaí 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree that the article has to be renamed to the Gaza offensive 2012 and why should the page be named with an israeli name, it would be better to rename it with a general name for the article.Alhanuty (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should the page be named with an Israeli name? Because otherwise we are making the name up. Reliable sources have referred to this as a Gaza offensive, they don't call this the Gaza Offensive. See my explanation above. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation is unconvincing because you only discuss one or two sources. You only mention sources that use both terms, but there are four times as many sources using the term "Gaza offensive"[10] than there are using "Operation Pillar of Defense"[11]. This shows that the majority of sources do not use the official Israeli term, thus it is not the common name, nor is it a neutral description of the article topic - so not a suitable name for the article. Also a lot of sources Dlv999 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean one or two sources? I mentioned 6 and a few of them didn't mention Pillar of anything. My point was that those using Gaza offensive is mentioned as a description not a name. I can take some time and explain 100 more if you want, but that is why Google search results don't work well. Has anyone produced a single source that refers to "Gaza Offensive" as the name of this? Ryan Vesey 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "Gaza Offensive 2012" isn't a very useful name, but keep in mind that Operation Cast Lead ended up just being called the Gaza War. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why has this topic been split into one article for each belligerent's operation? Surely that's going to create some serious overlap in scope. Where is the central article for this particular clash? Osiris (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what other article you are referring to. Capscap (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I'm trying to work out. Is this the article for the actual clash – the event currently unfolding? Or is this article about the Israeli side of the operations? Because the page's title and introduction would suggest the latter, but the rest of the article is a mish-mash of scope (a lot of it seems to describe the outbreak of violence in general, not specifically the Israeli offensive). If the topic is split into one article for each belligerent's operation, then why are we using {{Infobox military conflict}} and not a {{Campaignbox}} template in this article. Why isn't there just an article describing this particular clash as a whole? Surely that's more manageable for the reader than having one article about the Israeli campaign and another about the Palestinian campaign. Osiris (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the IDF military operation that began on 14 November, and Hamas's response to that operation. The background section is just that: the background to the operation. ~Asarlaí 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then does anyone here mind if we create another article where the whole event is covered (not just one belligerent's operation)? Something like "November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes" similar to other articles. Osiris (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I just explained that this article does cover the whole event. The event is an IDF military operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the Wehrmacht began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. That's all covered under Operation Barbarossa. ~Asarlaí 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the IDF military operation is obviously in response to a bigger event yes? As you explained, the background – detailing the violence that leads up to it – is not part of this particular operation. The German invasion of the Soviet Union is widely known as Operation Barbarossa, but in this case – are they calling the wider events of November "Operation Pillar of Cloud/Defense" in the media? To use a similar set of examples, the Gaza War is not widely known by the codename for the Israeli offensive (Operation Cast Lead), and by having the article at Gaza War, the perspective and scope is broadened to include the entire event rather than fixing it on one belligerent's operation. Osiris (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We seriously need to sort the title issue out because it is having effects on the article. An editor recently deleted material relevant to the background of the current out break of violence, claiming WP:SYNTH because the article did not mention the Israeli code name for its operation "Pillar of Defense".[12] This is absurd, because the majority of articles that are reporting on the topic do not specifically mention the Israeli code name; it is not the common name for the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this move should definitely be made. It is the appropriate name in English and there is no reason for Wikipedia to just translate the Hebrew name to English - especially when the correct term is used across the world, in all respectable news agencies, etc. Itamarm10 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Israel chose to represent the title of this operation in one way in English and another in Hebrew - for a reason. "Pillar of Cloud" is a Biblical reference to divine wrath raining down on Egypt and would be offensive to many in the international community. See http://gawker.com/5960562/israel-names-its-new-war-after-biblical-story-about-god-terrorizing-egyptians Changing the original Hebrew title may introduce serious NPOV issues. "2012 Gaza offensive" or somesuch would be an acceptable compromise, but please keep in mind that "Pillar of Defense" is Israeli PR and an attempt to duck reaction to the name the operation is referred to domestically. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Wikipedia policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Wikipedia. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name. On Hebrew wikipedia they can worry about the Hebrew name. Just like the name of our article on Bat Yam is Bat Yam, and not Daughter of the Sea or Mermaid. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is ENGLISH wikipedia and we are using ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources which use Pillar of Defense far more often. However, considering Interior Minister Eli Yishai state on the goal in Gaza: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years." it may take on quite another name by the time this is over. CarolMooreDC 05:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This really seems to be more of a technical error. The debate here is misplaced and should be dealt with after. But on the topic of that debate, as of now, Pillar of Defense is the best title according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe it will come to be called something else in the aftermath, but currently, Pillar of Defense is the prevalent, common name. The fact that the alternative name varies for each person that opposed only supports this. Capscap (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel strongly that using the "official" English name does not comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The fact that there are two official names, one in Hebrew and one in English, is not neutral, it is value-laden. To support one of these names would be complicit with a deliberate technique of double-meaning. It should not be named Operation Pillar of Defense, and there should be a section on the politics of the name. Mahosian (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.52.58 (talk) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV title

Note: in this thread, "support" means you support renaming the article and "oppose" means you think it should stay at "Operation Pillar of Defense".

Please choose a more neutral title, this reflects just the Israeli POV.--193.225.200.93 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an Israeli military operation (and, obviously, Hamas's response to that operation). I don't see how it's POV to hav' the operation's name as the name of the article about the operation, especially when it's being widely used in the media (see WP:COMMONNAME). ~Asarlaí 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, i do not accept the current title is biased, however i support a change to the title to pillar of defense as is being debated above. After that requested move is resolved it will be a chance to discuss if there should be an additional requested move. This is certainly not the way to propose a change to the article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who ever moved that new section on a change to the title up to this section has rather complicated this requested move. This is about a move to Operation Pillar of Defense. it is not appropriate for random additional non specific proposals to be made which people say they support. Lets deal with this current requested move, then start a wider requested move after this one has been resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I don't think calling it 2012 Gaza War is a correct name change at this time. As it wouldn't be following WP:COMMONNAME. I second BritishWatcher's comment that we should handle the current requested move above, and start the wider move after that.
It shouldn't, because (1) Israel has made other attacks on Gaza this year and (2) that name ignores Gazan militant attacks on Israel. ~Asarlaí 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One has to see the irony when someone complains about being serious on WP:NPOV then suggests an emotive word in the title like "attack" and a clearly one sided title. If we are going to change from going by the Israeli military operation title, it will need to be a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days. BritishWatcher (talk)
Asarlaí, your first point is a good one. I don't agree with your second one. Renaming it according to my suggestion is not ignoring the attacks from Gaza. But as over 90 % of the deaths have been on the palestinian side, that should be reflected in the name of the article. BritishWatcher, do you have any suggestions for "a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days", that are shorter than the article itself? PerDaniel (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Current name of the article is the name of the Israeli operation. This would be ok if article describes only this operation. However, this article describes conflict between some Gaza-based forces and Israel, not to mention that they have names for their involvement in this conflict too (Operation Sajil Stones and Operation Blue Sky). Therefore, it would be better to use an neutral name for this conflict, such as "2012 Gaza-Israel conflict" (which might become renamed "2012-2013 Gaza-Israel conflict" if it lasts long enough), or something better. Any thoughts? --93.139.191.200 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Gaza and Israel this year. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article is about Pillar of Defense operation and this is the official name of the operation. Additionally unless you can come up with a better name, this not a move request, but complaining that you dont like the current name.--Mor2 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the German Army began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. Our article about it covers both sides and is named Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking sides. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is the most common name and more specific than the alternatives. Plus, most of the alternatives offered have huge POV issues. A lot of the debate seems to result from the fact that Israel originally came up with and spread the name that is now commonly used, but it's not our job to judge the name based on where it originated. Capscap (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Using the name of the Israeli operation and one that by its definition introduces bias is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, one which the site is constently and currently making efforts to protect. This policy clearly outranks WP:COMMONNAME. Nickyfsm (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)nickyfsm[reply]
  • Oppose: This article should be on the Israeli operation since that is how the article was set up. Ryan Vesey 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This RFC is redundant and inappropriate considering the finalised one immediately preceding it. Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport: I fully agree with users Hillock65 and Nickyfsm, there is important precedent here, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. Whatever the name becomes, it cannot remain Operation Pillar of Defense. This makes Wikipedia complicit in linguistic war tactics. --Mahosian (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that this argument was already addressed:

    The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Wikipedia policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Wikipedia. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name.

Background (everything about the background goes here)

previous to November 10

it should be mentioned that previously to November 10 the palestinians also put road side bombs injuring an idf soldier along with firing some 20 rockets into israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.164 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How recently before November 10? --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4 days prior.Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i believe rocket attacks began from october 24th with 65 frockets fired on israel on that day http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/five_hurt_as_gaza_rockets_pummel_israels_south , and subseqently continued and escalated on nov 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.46 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a big event firstly, i don't think that other sources said about this,thirdly pro israeli source talking about the conflict aren't that reliable Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict started October 24th There can be no question about it. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/

This conflict started when Israel killed children playing football. The source for that is CNN and it was on of many edits that were mysteriously removed. --Moemin05 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article at http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/15/israelgaza-avoid-harm-civilians from Human Rights Watch that is an analysis of the news reports (which incidentally begins by imploring Palestinian groups to halt rocket attacks) and seems quite unbiased, states the following: "The current round of fighting began on November 8, during an incursion by Israeli forces into southern Gaza, east of Khan Yunis". scottwilleke (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza's economic and humanitarian position has been perilous since Israel enacted its closure policy on the enclave in 2007." I think this violates NPOV - this is Hamas's position, which is denied by Israel and many other people. Inkbug (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be denied by Israel, but it is supported by other, more independent sources, such as the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247786.stm PerDaniel (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, GAZA economy were completely dependent on Israel in employment, exports etc and following the disengagement, they economy plummeted. Unlike the PA in the west bank, Hamas spend little on housing, educational and civilian infrastructure. The hamas tries to pin this on the naval blockade, but it only server to minimize weapon export, food and other exports are freely flowing from Egypt and Israel.
So I would ask to refrain from things that are out of scope of this article and thus cannot be explained from all POV and stick to the leads of the conflict and the previous operation.--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to censor us on here, Mor2. Gaza's humanitarian situation is a relevant factor in these events.--212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"background"

In this edit [13] User:Dlv999 reinserted material in violation of WP policies -- namely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We can go back in time forever for "background" but we are limited to what the reliable sources consider the "background", not our OR or synthesis. I invite User:Dlv999 to defend her actions or to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might help settle what specific date should be the start: "The strikes came after five days of rising tensions along the Gaza border which began on Saturday [Nov. 10] when Palestinian fighters fired an anti-tank rocket at an army jeep, sparking Israeli fire which killed seven." [14] Israeli sources also mention the jeep attack as being a sort-of starting point: "The violence was renewed when Islamic Jihad terrorists fired an anti-tank missile at an IDF Jeep carrying out a routine patrol on the Israeli side of the border on Saturday, striking the vehicle directly and wounding four soldiers." [15] Therefore, I think specific events before November 10 should not be included and the subsection should start with the attack on the jeep. Capscap (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a cut off date then fine, but as it stands the article documents rocket attacks by Palestinians in October and a Palestinian road side bomb on 5th of November. The material Brewcrew removed was about an Israeli attack on the 5th of November. Deleting material describing violence from one side while leaving earlier violence from the other side in the article is not consistent with WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also For WP:NPOV on the starting point see[16]: :"Israel claims the flare-up began Saturday when Palestinian militants fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli jeep on the Gaza border, injuring four soldiers. Israel shelled Palestinian targets in response, after which Palestinian groups launched their barrage of rockets into southern Israel over the next two days, with Israel shelling still more targets in Gaza."
"Hamas says the violence stemmed from an Israeli incursion into Gaza two days earlier. Four tanks and an armoured bulldozer drove 100 to 200 metres into central Gaza Thursday in order to root out explosives in a tunnel that had been unearthed. During the action, a 13-year-old boy was killed when the Israelis returned fire from Palestinian fighters. That incident triggered a series of small attacks leading to the Saturday anti-tank firing, Palestinians say."Dlv999 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote abouve, this started back in late October. Arguments about November's activities are meaningless. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem including both versions, assuming it is similarly reported as such in other sources, but DLV's edit did not include both versions and remains unsourced specifically as to the background.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was revert your edit. You deleted reference to an Israeli attack on the 5th of November while leaving in material related to October rocket attacks and a November 5th attack by Palestinians. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed unsourced material and you reinserted unsoured material. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.This is not an effort to politicize, but I am having significant trouble with newspapers to figure out when rocket-fir began to escalate. I had to read pretty far into the Wiki. The following passage is non-specific, has a typo, and uses an ambiguous antecedent: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations.[7] This operation comes after several Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missles." I propose changing it to this: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations.[7] Israeli newspapers report increased fire from Gaza on November 10 and 11. [source:http://www.timesofisrael.com/air-force-strikes-multiple-terror-targets-in-gaza/] Operation Pillar of Clud comes after initial Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missiles." Lysis.strata (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has made an edit and improved the sentence in question along the lines you suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation in Background?

Regarding this section in the Background section:

Israel will hold elections for the Knesset on 22 January 2013, and some sources (including Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan[30]) suggest the operation was timed to improve the current government's electoral prospects. Israel denies that the operation is related to the elections.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, should this person opinion be in the background section?

He is the PM of a powerful neighboring country, and NATO member, so I think his opinion is interesting, regardless of whether he's correct. Ketil (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opions are like.. lets just say that everyone has them, but this is not background information at best it is motives, where you can place those speculations. As for Erdogan, lets just say that he is a powerful and he is needed. As for his opinion and my interest in them, I think that the wikilekas from two years ago hit it on the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Turkish PMs view is totally inappropriate for the background section. It would be notable for the table on international reaction, but not in the background section. Support someone making the necessary changes. Will make them myself tomorrow if this has not been addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The material is cited by a number of RS as one of the factors involved in the buildup to the current outbreak of violence. RS report it as relevant to the buildup therefore per WP:NPOV it should be discussed as a significant viewpoint in the build up. Wikipedia reports all significant views, not just the ones that happen to fit with the official Israeli narrative. Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Turkish politician's unfounded suppositions are not lead-worthy. They can be included in the table of responses if at all. Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not going to be just one long tract explicating the Israeli opinion. We report all significant views published in RS. If you check the cited sources as well as Erdogan, RS report that analysts have also listed the Israeli election as a factor in the outbreak of violence. Dlv999 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many unrelated foreign parties have accused Israel of doing this for the elections. Would you like a list? --Moemin05 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to someone adding claims about the election into the international responses table. But it is totally inappropriate to include 1 leaders views in the background information section. Otherwise why cant others be included too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not one leaders views, please read the article and read the cited sources. Having a discussion about what editors erroneously believe is in the article is not a productive way to move the article forward. Erdogan was among the people who have expressed this viewpoint, he is not the only person to have expressed it. It is clearly a significant view about the background to the violence and should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In politics views are motivated by self serving interests. Evener since Erdogan failed to join Turkey with the EU, he has been trying to gain more influence in the middle east, using several tactics to gain more popularity with people of the region. I can make a magic 8 ball from his opinions. Regardless, Why is Erdogan reaction shouldn't be placed with the rest under the International reaction section? --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with the point we are raising. Many unrelated parties have related this event to the elections. It is not Erdogan alone. You are capable of googling this yourself. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And other unrelated parties attribute it to the hamas and they are all gathered in the international reaction section. You are capable to scrolling down yourself. --Mor2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That opinion is represented already - your POV refuses to acknowledge the other's, and refuse to include the numerous parties who accuse the Israelis of destroying Palestinian lives so they look good in the elections. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I posted the following for Vice regent, but he wants the discussion to be here so I will move it here.

I don't understand your edit, [1]. You write "Israel occupied Gaza Strip after the Six Day war, although it removed all settlers from Gaza in 2005." Could you please change it to "Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip ever since the Six Day war". The second clause is of no relation to the first. The removal of Israeli settlers has no bearing on the 45 year military occupation of Gaza which continues unabated. Please edit it to remove the connective "although". Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation of 1967 is different from today's occupation. Back then, Israel literally occupied Gaza. Today it only controls Gaza's airspace and coast. The 2005 disengagement significantly reduced the level of Israeli occupation.VR talk 04:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how your response answers my points. Your opinions on the level of occupation is irrelevent as you are not a source on the matter of Israeli occupation. According to bodies like the United Nations or the USA, Gaza is occupied by Israel and has been for 45 years now. [17]. Sepsis II (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Israelis view Gaza as occupied. Can you suggest a neutral way to include the fact that the US and UN both consider Gaza as still occupied?VR talk 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following quote is from the Gaza Strip article, "The UN, Human Rights Watch and other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea (only by land).[1][2][3]" Could we not add this how it is? Sepsis II (talk)

I removed that part and rewrote the intro for that section. Why? Because this article is not the main war article. This article is about a recent operation and info from 1967 is completely unnecessary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? The occupation is ongoing, today Israel occupies Gaza, just because they have been occupying Palestine for 45 years running does not decrease the significance that Israel occupies the Gaza Strip. Sepsis II (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That info belongs in the Gaza-Israel conflict article, not here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The occupation is of extreme importance to this article, it is a very large part of the answer to "why are these entities fighting in the first place". Please try to give a reason for the removal of the information rather than just stating as fact how you want it to be. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should mention that both the US and UN currently consider Gaza to be Israeli-occupied territory.VR talk 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not appear to highlight that the European Union and United States consider HAMAS a terrorist organisation in this article either.. that would seem relevant too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that would be covered when we state that Hamas has fired rockets into Israel. But if you want to specify that, go for it.
But I do think its important to state that Gaza is still Israeli-occupied.VR talk 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now the background section says that Hamas hass called for the destruction of Israel since 1988. That information is too much for this context. We removed mentions of Israeli occupation of Gaza Strip in 1967, so we shouldn't be going as far back at 1988.VR talk 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "occupation" as used here is a political term. Occupation is hardly ever used unless, Israel being the exception. In fact every similar case that I can think of, back from ww2, was never officially and consistently regarded as occupied. Also according to the letter of the law, Gaza was never occupied, but this was solved just as the Palestinian refugees, which has a unique definition on the UN page, set apart from the rest of the world. More to the point, with the removal of Israel troops and population, GAZA can't be called occupied territory, the current definition worked by US/UN and other countries regard Israel as an occupying power, to tie the gaza future with west bank, forcing Israel to work toward a broader peace solution. --Mor2 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Occupation is a legal term. Anyway, Vice regent, your last edit was incorrect regarding the US considering the Gaza strip to be occupied. The article you cited from 2009 does not say that the US position in 2009 was that Gaza was occupied. Additionally, the sources mentioned in the article have been updated (i.e. the CIA world factbook no longer says what CNN cites. Capscap (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CNN used two sources: CIA Factbook and US State department. The US State Department seems to classify Gaza Strip as "Occupied territories" in this recent report.VR talk 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

The information on elections was removed. This is information widely stated in the media. This should be restored either to the background section, or another section below.VR talk 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also entirely unfounded, and wikipedia is not the place to explain Israeli politics. 212.29.253.97 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is well-sourced, and we do seem to explain Hamas politics, and list the countries which do and do not recognize Hamas as terrorists.VR talk 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information not in source

Here is a direct quote from the intro "The stated aims of the operation, which began after several days of violent exchanges in which Gaza militants fired over 100 rockets at Israeli cities and towns and Israel launched strikes on targets in Gaza leading to the death of 6 militants, are to halt the rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip[14] and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations". None of the claims made including the firing of 100 rockets or the death of the 6 militants are mentioned in the sources numbered 14 and 15. Obviously this entire line about the goal of the operation needs to be deleted since the editors are simply "paraphrasing" stuff out of the blue. 142.150.206.130 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you should spam the lead with source, but this information is sourced. The section of the lead provide a summary of events from the 'Pre-operation events' section. For example the '100 rockets' part is mentioned in sources numbered 75 80(hit Ctrl+F - 100 rockets).--Mor2 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demand for end of blockade

Hamas has repeatedly demanded that Israel lift its blockade in exchange for ceasefire with Israel. They indicated this in June 2008, December 2008, January 2009 and December 2010. This should be stated in the background.VR talk 06:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (everything about NPOV goes here)

Unacceptable Bias

I made additions to the opening paragraph to complement the Israeli view, and they were removed 'because they were not neutral'! What is neutral about this article right now? It is unacceptable to remove facts backed up by reputable news sources because certain editors on here insist that this article be biased against the Palestinians. I demand a reasonable explanation concerning the removal of these two edits. The sources are reputable and back up the content, the formatting is fine, it is necessary to convey the other side's view:

This encyclopaedia must not be allowed to become a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second of these is not my edit, but was removed for 'violating neutrality'. So now we can't even mention the victims of this attack? It is a statement of fact not an opinion. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the deaths are of notable figures, we do not go into details for the deaths of people on either side. It's completely WP:undue weight. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are "unkown name" people listed as being killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for the israeli ambassador leaving Cairo suddenly,it is a fact,and the egyptian government spoke man said that israel has violated an egyptian brokered truce,is also a fact . Alhanuty (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no mention made of the 300+ targets that the IDF has destroyed inlcuding a UAV program, and Fajr5 missle depots? This article seems to only care about people killed when the entire point of the military action is to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel since Oct 24th http://en.rian.ru/world/20121114/177463736.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of this military operation is not to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel. The point is to try to stop more rockets from being launched -- that is by destroying the sources of these rockets. The rockets that have already been fired are presumably exploded or lying around on the ground.... to destroy them, you'd send in a bomb squad or something. No airstrikes needed.

Terrorists or Militants

I'm pretty sure there is a Wikipedia policy about this, but should we use militants instead of terrorists when referring to people fighting in the conflict? Dhawk790 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should use terrorist, provided it is sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for Israeli propaganda. We should stay neutral. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Militant seems more neutral, but still has negative connotations. Per WP:TERRORIST, we need to have in-text attribution when using the term "terrorist". But it's best to not use it at all, for the sake of avoiding edit wars. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term "militant" sounds just as bad as "terrorist" and is also inaccurate and misleading. Hamas, claiming to be the legally constituted Palestinian government, should have their forces referred to as "soldiers." We wouldn't call IDF forces "Israeli militants." By further comparison, in the entry FARC, FARC fighters are referred - in several places - as "FARC Soldiers." That said, I wouldn't object to calling non-Hamas Gaza-based forces and independent operators, like the Popular Resistance Committee, as "militants." BlueSalix (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However the term "soldier" holds several implications (some of them codified into int'l law) that afaik don't apply to Hamas fighters, like being organized into a regular army with identifiable uniform and rank, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.68.212 (talk • contribs)

this article has to stay neutral,and propaganda can't be accepted at all only facts are,and nobody are to write in favor of any side Alhanuty (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

by the way using the term terrorist is very pro-israel,i agree with the term militant or using the term Hamas fighters .Alhanuty (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term terrorist is not pro-Israel. Is referring to al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization Pro-US? It would only be pro-Israel if we referred to the people as terrorists and the media hadn't. That being said, I'm willing to accept militants as a compromise. Ryan Vesey 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about fighters? I think that's more neutral than militant. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Plenty of sources use the term militants and indeed terrorists. Secondly, fighters is an inaccurate term since it connotes two active participants, which is not the case with the rocket fire directed at Israeli civilians. Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a contentious label (WP:TERRORIST), especially considering that Hamas was democratically elected, and are the current government. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So terrorist organization can't be elected though popular vote? History and logic might disagree with you. Also while hamas was democratically elected, they also made a little armed coup, overthrowing the Palestinian security forces and the other party members. Which is why atm the Palestinians have two presidents, the Hamas in Gaza who are shooting rockets on civilian population in Israel and the PA in the west bank, who recently built the first Palestinian city and working toward recognition through diplomatic means.--Mor2 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the Israelis are the terrorists. Is it pro-Hamas? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the bottom line is that the article has to stay neutral . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the word terrorist shouldn't be used at all . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should be labelled as terrorists (or freedom fighters), there can be no compromise on this. I believe soldiers to be technically incorrect to describe Palestinian fighters, I think forces, such as "Hamas forces launched..." would be optimal, or perhaps "armed forces"/"armed forces member", militant is okay, but sub-optimal. Sepsis II (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hamas forces sounds the most neutral. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nordon 1990 i meant the using of the word terrorist on Hamas Alhanuty (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word terrorist doesn't belong in this article, unless it's clearly being used to express the opinion of an explicitly named source. Something like "IDF Spokesman Example McExampleson said that IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," would be acceptable (if it had a source confirming it of course.) Something like "IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," as a statement of fact would not be. We don't even call al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden terrorists; we just say they have been described as such by particular groups. I think militant would be okay although not ideal, as would fighters. I don't think Hamas' forces generally meet the criteria to be described as soldiers (and they aren't generally described as such in reliable sources,) although I do have some qualms about describing members of an official wing of the ruling government of a territory as militants. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about militant vs. terrorist, but I don't even get why it's an argument when both terms objectively describe Hamas. (See Terrorism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Therefore, refering to Hamas members as "terrorists" is accurate. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the united States, the European Union too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Militant is appropriate throughout the article, with terrorist used where directly quoted. Strongly oppose attempts to water this article down by using terms like "HAMAS Forces". They are clearly militants at the very least and numerous sources use that term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to international law, armed resistance against an occupying force is legal. Hamas has killed civilians, IDF has killed more. Were they specifically targeted? We cannot tell and thus the term 'terrorist' should be out of the question. Bauey (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you absolutely can tell. The relative paucity of female casualties strongly indicates who is being targetted. Women generally dont fight.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forces is definitely best word to use to avoid reader confusion and WP edit wars and only when a specific term or phrase is used in some important quote or context should more controversial terms be used. CarolMooreDC 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "against an occupying force" not civilians. We call hamas terrorist not for attacking Israeli military, but for targeting civilian population. while civilian casualties are mounting on both sides, there is a huge difference between unfortunate collateral damage to civilian life and intentional targeting them. If Israel has been targeting civilian population like the hamas, we wouldn't be speaking about dozens of victims but tens of thousands(after all simple explosive shells are much much cheaper than precision strikes)--Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because civilians are the primary target doesn't mean that either forces are terrorists. Armies have attacked civilian populations throughout history, but for different reasons. Hamas may have been labelled "terrorists" by several major world powers, but Gaza had continually targeted Israel for over a decade, despite a 6-month cease-fire. In addition, it's been made clear that Hamas has been allied with PIJ and PLFP in this conflict, and any question of individual affiliation on their end is hard to quantify. Jscorp (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I've added a POV tag. The article currently presents exactly the POV of the Israeli military. Many facts have been removed along with the reliable sources provided. These facts are not even included as "Palestinian opinion but removed completely. Check edit history for constant and obvious Israeli military soapboxing. Mr G (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain what part of the article is not neutral. The article presents the exact POV of the IDF? Prove it. I think the article is well-balanced — using sources from Israel, the Arab world, and the West. It presents a wide range of international opinions on the conflict and a reasonably neutral chronology of events.
It is absolutely essential that we assume good faith here. Please don't accuse the editors here of soapboxing without good evidence. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POV is a serious issue. If you see something specific that strikes you as POV, please inform use, so we can discuss how to fix it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all three comments above, there are several times when I came across the article when it mentioned Israeli casualties, but not Palestinians. It would also refer to Israeli civilians, but not to Palestinian civilians. There was a point where the article elaborated on how schools in Israel were shut down, but stayed mum on the effects of the Israeli bombings. There is (or was) a concerted effort to show that 100% of all Israeli actions are "retaliation" or "in response", and that implies Palestine is the one starting this. There is bias in the article, and the evidence is that nearly everyone on the Palestinian side gets referred to as "terrorist" at one point or another, and someone has to come along and fix this. While some efforts are there to correct this bias, it is more often the case that the article is pro-Israel biased than it is neutral. I suggest locking the article if this continues, and to semi-protect it in the mean time Unflavoured (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Locking the page would be totally counterproductive. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will suggest semi-protection, so that IPs and SPAs can chill for a while. Most of the POV-pushing seems to come from IPs. Unflavoured (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any consensus to keep the tag on the page? Ryan Vesey 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to discuss specific language issues first and then, if no consensus is easily reached, to add the POV tag. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping the tag, until a reasonable amount of editors can concur that it is neutral. As an example of bias: The second paragraph in the lead tells us that Palestinians fired 300 rockets into Israel. It does not tell us how many bombs Israel dropped, or even how many raids it conducted. The paragraph after it tells us that some countries condemn Israel's operation, but some countries condemn Palestinian actions... with the added "Israel has a right to defend itself." I am not going to go through every paragraph pointing out bias, but the picture is clear. And no, I cannot fix it all by myself, especially when the article is not protected at all, and is currently attracting tonnes of edits. Why remove the POV tag when the POV is obvious and provable ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a country takes action against a terrorist organization, of course that country is going to look better. If you feel like we haven't written enough about Israeli actions, then the article is incomplete, not POV laden. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you complain about the second paragraph? It precedes the statement you referred to with "the IDF killed 16 Palestinians, including 8 civilians". Ryan Vesey 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unflavored, the second paragraph begins with the casualty count of of the Israeli bombings. I don't see bias. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that no mention of Israeli raids/bombings/methods is there, while it is very explicit with the Palestinian side is doing. Just because Palestinian casualties are mentioned first, does not mean that this removes the bias. Unflavoured (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the POV tag, after only 1 hour of it being added, when there are two editors saying it is POV and two saying it is not ?! This is not how consensus is reached. And worse, you removed the POV tag whilst in the midst of the discussion. Unflavoured (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reread. You were the only editor who said there was POV. With FutureTrillionaire asking for evidence, Jprg1966 saying he didn't see bias and mentioning that the tag should be added if consensus was that POV existed, and I have failed to find any POV. If consensus can be found that there is POV, the tag can be restored. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Follow your own advice and re-read. It was not I who added the POV tag, or created this section. Your decision to ride rough-shod over my voice and remove the tag even though we were clearly not done discussing it is not civil. A POV tag does not need consensus to be added, but it does need consensus to be removed. The article has blatant POV issues. I am going to assume good faith and say that you were not aware that more than one user sees the article as being biased. Now you are aware. Act accordingly. Unflavoured (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list:

  • The lead says number of missiles fired into Gaza is "300+", but not the number of airstrikes made by Israelis. I'm not sure that airstrikes/rockes should even be mentioned when there are no casualties, since it is easy to deny or invent numbers for missiles that don't hurt anyone.
Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "insignificant". read again. Mr G (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What - you only want to list attacks that kills somebody? How is that NPOV? That would make Israel's claim to target infrastructure look false, and also diminish the apparent rocket threat by Hamas.
  • Partisan Israeli sources like "algemeiner.com" and "Israeli National News" are included while equivalent Palestinian sources (I think much more reliable, at least equally reliable) like "pchrgaza.org" and "maannews.net" have been removed along with the claims that they make.
I think this can be addressed in the context of specific edits/changes like the one you mentioned below regarding the 13 year old. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section name "Background" is euphemistic. It was improved, then reverted.
  • The "Background" section begins with "Rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel continually throughout 2012." This is a clear attempt to imply that Palestinians "started it". An accurate way to begin would be to state the number of civilian casualties on BOTH SIDES for the preceding month. (I'm guessing zero, and first civilian casualties in November were Palestinians on November 5 and November 8)
I don't think anything is intended by it other than providing a general background. I think it's better than a recitation of specific rocket attacks on a daily basis. Also, the first sentence of the article/lead says that the operation was launched with the IDF assassination of Jabari. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partisan claims from "Israeli National News" are stated as fact such as the unverifiable claim that a rocket hit Israel on November 4, hurting nobody. *Reliably sourced Palestinian POV on the November 5 and November 8 attacks have been removed. The wording of the Israeli military claims have been changed so that they are now stated as fact. For example, the Israeli that the 13 year old was killed when troops were "returning fire" is stated as fact, where as the Palestinian claim that the boy was playing soccer, for which there a multiple sources, is not even stated as opinion, and all the sources were removed. Ludicrous fringe claims like that the militants were using the 13 year old as a "human shield" are included, while believable claims by Palestinians witnesses have been removed.
It looks like this was fixed. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fact, sourced from the BBC, was removed "An Israeli strike on November 15th resulted in the death of the 11-month old son of a BBC Arabic World Service cameraman in Gaza City."
This also looks fixed, although perhaps more detail can be added in the casualty section. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, this is is anti-Israel POV? The article is a pure propaganda piece, and we only have their (unfounded) claim that it was an Israeli round.
  • The language is POV too. Hamas is described as a "regime".
I can't edit it, but I agree that the word regime should be dropped. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By now the word regime is not in the article. Inkbug (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just reread the lead and I don't think it says anything controversial. I can't edit it, but if this is an issue, I'm sure you can find everything there in third party sources. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement in the lead that the Israeli airstrikes "targeted dozens of rocket launching pads, weapons depots and facilities" is the official IDF position, so the lead is effectively being used as Israeli military press release. Mr G (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this factually incorrect? Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a verified fact. It is official Israeli position. Palestinians argue the military is targeting civilians, since most people killed have been civilians, including two children. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the civilian targeting bit is clearly false. A military superpower like Israel doing hundreds of attacks on densely populated areas with poor infrastructure, and what, 20 civlians killed so far? It'd be nice to cite a third party analysis, though.

I'm too tired to keep going, knowing that in the past such NPOV fixes have been temporary and quickly returned to Israeli POV, but here are a list of sources that have been removed:

Reliable sources for factual statements that have been removed:

Notable opinions:

The above articles from electronicintifada.net are blogs, so don't qualify to be used as factual sources, but it is illustrative to the failing of U.S. media that no timeline of comparable accuracy and has been produced by any of our American "reliable sources" or even by the BBC. These timelines in my opinion are highly accurate and balanced, but it highly unlikely that Israeli militants will agree. In any case they should at least be included as "Palestinian claims" and some of the claims should be placed in an "media criticism" section.

Mr G (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The POV-pushing by IP continues: [18]. This should be enough to convince anyone that this article has serious POV issues. This page seriously needs semi-protection. Unflavoured (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my skim of the article as it now stands, it looks like the issues have been addressed. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have. Most of them haven't. Try re-reading my list and double checking the article. For each improvement, other things have been changed for the worse, so I will continue adding items to the list. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Arutz Sheva link is only being used to justify the article title as it stands. It's not being relied upon for a neutral account of the chronology. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Houses in Israel were destroyed and schooles were closed as of Oct 24th 2012. The Fact that Israelis were able to reach bomb shelters quickly enough and not get killed is not a reason to ignore the events. Ignoring this makes the article a joke. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That attack was separated from the current conflict for cease fire which lasted for about 10 days, and which was broken by the Israelis on November 5 and followed by a second attack on November 8. Rocket fire from the Palestinian side recommenced sometime after November 5 and before November 10, so the current conflict begins on November 5. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second the part about ignoring rocket attacks or airstrikes just because there were no casualties. Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What cease fire? There were rocket attacks on Oct 24, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and Nov 4th. There is no 10 day period from Oct 24th that a cease fire existed. This is blatant bias and POV. Oct 30th even has a recording first use of a 45KM range missile from Gaza beign fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012#October For any factual claim of a cease fire to be made, both sides need to actually cease their firing! Such an event NEVER took place since the 80 rocket bombardment on Oct 24th. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wat is the source for the November 4 claim? Mr G (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely seems to have been a spike in drama on 5 November, with the shooting of the man at the border and the roadside bomb that struck the Israeli soldiers. As it stands now, the article mentions the rocket fire in October as a lead-up to the 5 November incident. I don't see a blatant bias against Israel. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the wiki article I pointed to and follow the sources if you need. There was a spike in Drama in late october when schools in Bear Sheva were closed and the Mayor complained that they were told to act normal. The events in October is what lead to the creation of operation pillar of defense, not the events in November. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4297621,00.html Or perhaps it was Oct 30th when a first time long range rocket was shot at Demona, where Israel's nuclear research is. (google chrome translates the page into English) http://www.mivzaklive.co.il/archives/41865 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is not biased as claimed. The POV tag should be removed. Its not possible for everyone to be entirely happy with everything in the article on something like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, I would not call this article NPOV. As one example: it's mentioned in two places in the article that Israeli schools near Gaza have been closed. It's not mentioned anywhere that all UN schools in Gaza have also been closed, despite this being mentioned in numerous RS'es. This is far from the only example where information about how Israelis have been effected is included whereas comparable information about how Palestinians have been effected has not been included. Even if all of the Israeli information is accurate and belongs in the article, the omission of the same information about Palestinians creates a POV problem. I'll probably fix an occasional such thing as I see it, but don't have the willpower to get in to the shitslinging match that trying to balance this article would inevitably end up turning in to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly POV. Very few of the issues I raised above have been fixed, and in many ways the article has gotten worse. The second sentence of the lead is directly stating the Israeli military press release as fact. The removal of the tag is in itself proof of the huge Israeli bias here, since the tag only states that NPOV is in "dispute" which it clearly evident here on the talk page. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, stating the Israeli position as fact and ignoring any other viewpoints is entirely inconsistent with WP:NPOV a core policy of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that the removal of the NPOV tag is proof of Israeli bias. As already discussed this could have been done by somebody who has not understood the rules in relation to removing the NPOV tag and we must assume good faith.
Even if the second sentence of the lead is the Israeli military press release, I do not believe this implicitly makes the article non NPOV. The page is called "Operation Pillar of Cloud", which is Israel's name for the operation. I would assert that adding Israel's stated intention within the lead, helps to clarify the Israeli position on the matter and provide context for the reader. This does not imply that the Israeli operation is moral or justified, just gives clarity as to why Israel has began the operation.
I do agree that there could potentially be more of the Palestinian viewpoint discussed within the lead, however instead of simply stating that this article is in breach of the NPOV rules, good faith should be assumed and the Palestinians POV could be enhanced by adding additional sources.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards
Sirkus (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregcaletta's concerns are very legitimate.--Severino (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockets were fired into Israel BEFORE this event, the fact you seem to be suggesting the article is biased wthout somehow making this the "starting point" highlights that the current POV tag is unjustified. The article is not biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source please. And how does that justify killing a child playing football? --130.88.52.213 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully - it is biased because that information was removed for no valid reason - much like a lot of other valid information was removed despite being relevant, encyclopaedic and well sourced. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I'm not going to comment on any of the content of the article, as I'm staying uninvolved for administrative purposes, but is it really necessary to have the flags next to the international reactions? MOS:ICON is pretty clear about not using them without good reason, and I'm really not seeing what they add to anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they're pretty... While I'm not the biggest fan of MOS:ICON, I do agree that the flags should be removed. As the material is currently written, it would probably be best presented in a table once the flags are removed. Ryan Vesey 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change. Ryan Vesey 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help you setting the table up if I had any idea what I was doing; all I can do is say that sounds like a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties (everything about casualties goes here)

73 year old casualty

A 73 year old man died on his way to a bomb shelter. http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/amud-anan/Article-2a4cf3a2e301b31006.htm&Partner=rss Google chrome can translate the article. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this hasn't been added to the page yet? 212.29.253.97 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't die from a rocket - he died of a heart attack caused by a rocket. (a small difference.) Inkbug (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is just stupid. Nobody has died from a rocket. People have only died from shrapenel or the expansion of air, caused by a rocket. This man died because a rocket was fired into his vicinity.

Casualties and losses-Children?

I haven't dealt with a similar article, is it common to put a parenthetical note for how many children died on a side? I'm looking at some things where I know children died like the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and there's nothing in the infobox listed. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No, it is not common. It is a subjective ploy.

A child could be a militant. If, for example, a 12-year-old child was given a weapon and a uniform and asked to attack enemy soldiers that child would be a legitimate military target, and it would make no sense to refer to that casualty as a "child" since that would be demagoguery.

When talking about civilians and militants it makes no sense to discriminate their age or gender.

A child is either a civilian or a militant in this context. The use of children in militias or armies is not unheard of, and any person with a weapon is dangerous.

Bennyman (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the dead children have been an 11-month old boy, 8-month old girl and 7-year old girl. Militants indeed.VR talk 05:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice Regent

It does not matter. All people are civilians unless armed or stated otherwise. Wikipedia does not discriminate based on age or gender.

When you start to talk about "women and children" dying you are using pathos which is an appeal to people's emotions which is subjective, and not objective. You are also justifying the murder of men as more fair and men as lesser beings than women and children.

Bennyman (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS report the number of children killed as relevant therefore it is relevant to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty names

Casualties are often named if their names are available. For example, see this article. I'm ensuring that the names of casualties, both Israeli and Palestinian, are included and sourced.VR talk 05:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that article can serve a guide. The Kandahar massacre was a singular event created by a single soldier. Is there a precedent for including the names of the deceased in a broader military operation? --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the two articles as very similar. I think the differences you mention are rather minor. If we are talking about a "broader military operation", we have this article, where German casualties in Afghanistan war are named.
The names I added are clearly mentioned in reliable sources.
You cited Wikipedia:Notability. That guideline is about whether people can have their own articles, not whether they can be mentioned in an article whose notability is proven without doubt. In fact there's a section that says just that.VR talk 05:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to name the casualties, except for propoganda. Reading through the talk section, it seems there was a user who complained this article was pro-Isreal, when in actuality, it was a fairly balanced article. Today, that has changed and there has been a shift towards the Palastinian POV. Listing all the casualties with names and ages, is propoganda for the Palastinians and has no place in this article. I request that it be removed. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Israeli and Palestinian casualties have been listed.VR talk 14:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names of casualties are not listed in any other military conflict article in Wikipedia, and for good reason. Please remove that section.

It looks like you have already expressed your opinion on this in the already open discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud#Casualty_names) on this issue. Opening another thread to repeat your opinion is disruptive, and it is not going to increase the likelihood of your position being accepted. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEMORIAL, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY I have removed the names added in the section and left the total number killed references in place. Yes I see it fine to add info on the notable people and how they died but as an encyclopedia we cant mention every single person killed by name if they are not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's completely undue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, but I see the consensus is against me, so I'll accept that result.VR talk 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties, casualties, casualties

The article currently lists the number of casualties in three different places and none of the numbers match. For as long as these numbers are subject to constant change, I think the article would be better maintained if the numbers only had to be updated in two places. I think the only uncontroversial option is to remove it form the infobox while leaving the number in the lead and in the casualties section. Capscap (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is a "current" tag on the article:
It's fine for the numbers not to match, since the numbers are uncertain. Shall we put the words "at least" in fron to f each of the numbers? (since the numbers will go up with time; not down). Mr G (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it's current and the information may rapidly change, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be internally consistent. If editors are going to not notice or forget to change the casualty numbers in multiple places, I think it would be better with only mismatch rather than two. Capscap (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirah Scharf

Mirah Scharf, the Israeli woman who was killed in the apartment bombing, was pregnant. I believe that should be mentioned in the casualties section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...if we are mentioning the pregnant Palestinian woman, then the Israeli pregnant woman should be mentioned as well. Please fix this. --98.199.150.149 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I want to fix it, but right now it seems only editors with accounts are allowed to edit the page. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None are mentioned now. Inkbug (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hamas militants killed

I have placed tags on this as I feel it goes against consensus reached above, I do not see why we need to include names of those who are not notable. See also: WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that civilians should not be named, but known militants that are killed seems a valid and useful information section, considering the stated objective of the military operation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but I think there should not be a list of every militant killed. Not all of them are notable. For the ones that are, I think it'd be better to work them into the text if possible. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Knowledgekid87 mentioned his objection to the section on my talk page. Naturally I agree with BritishWatcher that it's important to have this information, and I stated my reasons there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a compromise would be one of those hide/show boxes ? so that those who wish to see the list can simply click show, and avoids the article getting too long as the list is added to? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant section is WP:NLIST. The names of each and every militant listed needs to be of sufficient importance to be worth including within the text of the article to be considered sufficiently notable for a list. Especially since this is an ongoing operation and there is bound to be a sizable number of deceased militants by the end of it, I do not see how each and every militant would merit being written into the text. I suppose we could do one of the hat things when the event gets to the stage where there's a "casualties" section. Jonathanfu (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally WP:Undue unless they are well known or major operatives, and then still is just a paragraph in casualties. CarolMooreDC 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we agreed to remove all the casualty names! I see this is completely wrong, given that all the casualty names of the civilians were removed. This needs to be removed ASAP per consensus.
Mentioning only the militants, while removing all mention of the civilian casualty names is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. It essentially ignores the Palestinian POV that many of their civilians have died in the conflict. Either we mention both, or neither. Names of notable militant casualties, like the Hamas commander should of course be mentioned in the text of the operation.VR talk 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a violation of NPOV, no civilians on either side should be named, armed militants that have been targeted and killed as part of the operation is very different and notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with only including the names of notable militants and what Jonathanfu said. The notable ones should be worthy of being worked into the text to qualify for a list. Capscap (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The names of the militants are notable, relevant, and do not take up an undue amount of space in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any argument that some of the militants that have been killed are notable, but not all of them are, and thus are not suitable for inclusion. Given that there is no news coverage besides the articles that tell of their killing, most of the deceased militants are likely footsoldiers, and not particularly notable themselves. Providing a list of IDF soldiers killed in the conflict would be equally unsuitable. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11-month child killed

BBC story

I was trying to find out more about this, but information is scarce. I don't understand from the pictures what kind of "round" would cause this kind of damage - clearly not HE, so it's unlikely to be an Israeli missile or tank round - perhaps an illumination artillery round, but I don't see why anybody would use one. The most likely explanation might be a part of the engine from a disintegrating Qassam.

According to sources today (18 Nov) there were no shells being used until now. I've not seen any reports mentioning smoke or illum either. Quassams have a solid block of propellant from sugar and potassium nitrate - could it fall out if the welding was subpar? Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an official source for that? --Mor2 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quassam details are from WP, it seems the nozzle is welded to the fuel compartment. I think the bit about only air raids until the 18th was CNN or BBC, but I don't have the link. This link claims tank fire on the 17th, though. It seems clear that artillery is now being used, but I don't think we can entirely rule out earlier use, even if it seems unlikely. Ketil (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for this is hopeless, journalists are incredibly sloppy and seem to call anything "shelling" and "artillery". Sigh. Ketil (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps casualties should not be listed at all until they are confirmed by a third party? 80.179.9.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it was a casualty, I'm mostly curious what would have caused it. Ketil (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His father held him in his arms and described how he was killed, you should watch it. --Moemin05 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, very emotional. Although the father's statement is important as such, he was apparently not present, and the evidence looks nothing like any "airstrike" - compare with the pictures of bombed Hamas offices. Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's role to accuse a child's father, local health officials and unaligned humanitariam organisations of lying, there is no reason to doubt this. It was reported by reputable news agencies --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except for evidence, and truth, yeah no reason... this is wikipedia, where Hamas lies rereported are more important that facts infront of your face. 80.179.9.7 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are very good reasons to doubt this, the photographic evidence is clearly not from an "airstrike", no matter what the victims claim. I think in any case reports from the victims, no matter how professionally presented, must be considered a POV source. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, and of course this won't go on an official WP page without credible sources - but I really would like to know the truth, if possible. Ketil (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing violates this encyclopedia's rules on original research. It is not for you to 'check evidence' if reliable sources report something. If it were our role I would start a counterargument (air strikes can kill without hitting directly) but you removed content based on your own opinion and some rudimentary original research --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What exactly are you referring to? What have I done which has violated OR rules, and what did you think I 'removed based on my opinion? Ketil (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

israel- none Casualties ???

3 killed in the israeli side, it's a fact ,what does it mean "According to Israel"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.248.104 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "none" refers to military casualties. Israeli civilian casualties are below it. Not sure what the "accordng to israeli" is for though, sems pointless to me too. (talk)
Not true. There are 1 dead and 2 wounded zionist sailors, after palestinians managed to hit a zionist gunboat with a "Kornet" anti-tank missile (russian make or its iranian copycat) on Friday. The gunboat was shelling Gaza from the very close distance of only 400 meters from the shore.
The above information is much supressed, because the vessel did not sink and returned to home port on the long way, so its damaged side was always pointing towards the open sea, unseen. (The same cover-up tactic was used when a zionist naval corvette got hit by an iranian made anti-shipping missile in 2006, killing several sailors.)
Iranian media also reports the palestinians downed a zionist F-16 two-seater jetfighter on Saturday and captured at least one of its crew. Palestinians now have powerful anti-rank and anti-air lightweight missiles, because supplies meant for the libyan and syrian "rebel" trojans were re-routed to them, via to pan-arabian sympathy. The same story western stupidity as it happened with Stinger via CIA -> anti-soviet mujahideen -> radical taliban / Al-Kaida. 87.97.97.219 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since When is "Zionist" an acceptable term for "Israeli"? Israel is a country. Zionism is a form of nationalism - love of a land. It has no body, no ships, no anything. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 year old

There is a bit of confusion about this, witnesses disagree on whether it was fire from a vehicle or a helicopter, and whether he was shot in the head or abdomen. IDF denies any knowledge. Could this be elaborated better? CNN Ketil (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PFLP as participant in the action

Someone added the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine as one of the combatants in the conflict. There is a reference to an apparently self-published Arabic website. Can we better verify PFLP's involvement? --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no outside confirmation, I'm going to remove them from the list of participants. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who added PFLP the link is to the offical PFLP website Here is a rough translation "The Brigades of the Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa - the military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,Continued their responses to the continuous Zionist aggression on our people in the Gaza Strip,"

They then claim responsibility for 17 attacks here is 4 of them (Again rough translation)


  • Bombing of Beersheba with Grad missiles Wednesday, 14/11/2012 8.25 pm.
  • Shelling Sderot Eshkol with four missiles 1.55 am .
  • firing two rockets at settlements east of Khuza'a 10.30 am.
  • targeting the military airport in Algostinh with three Grad rockets at 1.25 pm.

I think they belong in the infobox since they claim responsibility for a number of attacks and have provided a very specific timeline of attacks http://www.pflp.ps/news.php?id=3829 Pravdavoin (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions

In the opening, it says a number of countries including Australia condemned Palestinian rocket attacks and supported Israel. WRONG!! Australia did not condemn Palestine and nor do they support the Israelis, don't just assume next time, fix it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Australia did condemn the attacks and express support of Israel here Capscap (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't generalise to "Australia". Julia Gillard's opinion is her opinion, and most Australians would used the word "condemn" at all. Foreign minister Bob Carr said something much less partisan. Mr G (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is to the government, not the people. The prime minister explicitly said, "Australia supports Israel's right to defend itself against these indiscriminate attacks. Such attacks on Israel's civilian population are utterly unacceptable."[19] Also, the fact that it's Julia Gillard making this statement is explicit in the article. I'm not sure how this is an issue. Capscap (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: the opening no longer lists every country so this is not an issue. Capscap (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Israel in the Reactions section? Shouldn't the actors of the operation be instead in the body of the article? 99.112.213.81 (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of Israeli politicians is notable and important. I could understand removing the comments of people who are directly involved in the operation (e.g., Netanyahu and Barak), but the opinions of the Israeli political elite as a whole are very relevant. The fact that the leaders of Israel's two largest opposition parties support the operation is important, for example. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this belongs in the introduction. Rather than (eventually) listing 100 countries in the introduction, I think it makes more sense to just have this in the reaction section. I don't think the UNSC part is even in that section yet. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at most only a few countries that are particularly relevant should be mentioned in the lead (e.g. United States, Egypt, etc.). --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the other countries removed altogether? I did not start this list, but if there is to be a list, let it be complete. Venezuela, Malaysia and about a dozen other countries condemned this attack and are no longer mentioned! --212.9.126.106 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard from a reporter that there has been condemnations of the Israeli attack from Pakistan, Yemen, and Tunisia(Tunisia had sent an envoy to visit a hospital in Gaza). Include these reactions if there is a url with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OblivionFire (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#OpIsrael Anonymous

There is no mention of Anonymous hacking Israel's top surveillance site at http://falcon-s.co.il/ under Operation Pillar of Cloud#Social media and Internet. Will add it soon. Derpian (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information with source Derpian (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit it, but was trying to add more detail by changing it to the following. Perhaps someone else can edit it.

[[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] attacked many Israeli websites in response to the IDF offensive in Gaza and claims to have taken down at least 50 sites.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/anonymous-targets-israeli-websites-response-gaza-conflict-1C7106339 | title= Anonymous targets Israeli websites in response to Gaza conflict |publisher=NBC News|accessdate=November 15, 2012}}</ref> Many of the websites were replaced with messages condemning the Israeli campaign and expressing support for the citizens of Gaza.<ref>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/anonymous-attacks-israeli-web-sites/</ref> :

Capscap (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Capscap (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Kandil Visit"

It should be noted that Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil visited Gaza for 3 hours. (perhaps in context of the Emir of Qatar's visit Oct 23rd?) There was a ceasefire during that 3 hour period, During which hamas forces fired 50 rockets into Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will research this. Can you give me a source to verify your claims? --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source (the Telegraph) and will add something about it. Thanks for the suggestion. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also notable, there was a dead 4yo child http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/16/gaza-children-face-grave-risks-in-crowded-urban-battle-zone/ bringing Kandil to tears, although the circumstances are disputed - I presume it's the same visit? Ketil (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new section of Hamas misinformation. That 4yo was killed by a Hamas rocket earlier in the day, and is linked to the false statement that Hamas shot down an f16. Link to the investigative reporting is down below.212.29.253.97 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of who starts the fire during Kandil's visit. the Israeli bombing of the HQ or the rockets.

Hamas Misinformation

1. I suggest that all Hamas misinformation talking points be merged into one section, it's getting hard to follow. (Feel free to delete this comment once it is done) 2. Apparently one of the children whom Hamas says was killed by the IAF was actually reported to be have been killed by a Hamas rocket that fell in gaza. (And said child was then used for publicity) http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/special-features/israel-at-war-operation-amud-anan/hamas-killed-the-baby-egyptian-fm-kissed-the-dead-baby-cnn-blamed-israel/2012/11/18/ 212.29.253.97 (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) 3. Typo (should have the period inside of the quotation mark.): "psychological war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.78.23 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UAV shootdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZw5gJG67A&feature=player_embedded

are there other sources? It should be noted that it is the first time Hamas takes down an Israeli aircraft.--193.225.200.93 (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not, and we don't know what brought down this UAV either. Poliocretes (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly, I hid the paragraph about the shootdown and removed it from the list of casualties. If it becomes more substantiated and we get some sort of reaction from the IDF about it, we might be able to re-post it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I do not think any other sources will confirm this. The IDF has said it's not their UAV. "@ofirgendelman The drone that Hamas showed on TV is not Israeli and is not in service in the IDF. This is another failed Hamas PR prop. #PillarOfDefense "

On the 14th it was announced on the radio that the IDF did destroy Hamas's UAV program. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israel-destroys-hamas-drone-program/2012/11/14/?src=ataglance It could be their own drone that wasn't damaged in the attack. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, a quick visit to Israeli-weapons.com shows the exact drone seen in this video, confirming it IS an Israeli UAV. It is a Rafael Skylite B UAV. The only thing missing in the video is the camera section that is normally mounted to the nose of the UAV is missing in the video but everything else about its appearance perfectly matches the appearance of the Skylite B. Here is the link: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/skylite_b/Skylite_b.htm Considering this strong evidence, I strongly suggested the downed drone be added to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.180.191 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that UAV is not in service by IAF or IDF. Anyone can slap some metal together in the correct shapes.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion

User:Logiphile deleted a substantial block of text without explanation. I reverted, and then s/he re-reverted, still without explanation. 1RR forbids me from adding it back in, but I still think this sourced text belongs. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have highlighted this issue in an Arbitration Enforcement complaint against Logiphile. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Position

Norge's position has been misstated.

This is what it is - "Israel has the right to defend itself, but notes that the military countermeasures against armed groups in the Gaza Strip should not be a form of collective punishment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.201.25 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglo and American positions

A formal declaration has not yet been issued. The matter is under study.

Comments by exiled governments in London and DC should not be taken seriously.

The State

OPC Gaza Nov '12

The confrontations have begun to resemble a ritual, being carried out solely as a means to vent anger, drawing unnecessary attention and resources.

The State advises both parties to think before they enter into a formal War, in the case of which, neither should expect a Victory.

This is a futile conflict, There is no Victory for idiots.

Other 'Powerful' States that've assumed stakes, are also warned to stay away and stop behaving like gung-ho children high on testosterone.

The State assumes neutrality and does not have time for Galilee and Promised Land Nonsense.

The State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.201.25 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza man who faked injury

The section discussing the Gaza man who faked injury was tagged with a better source needed tag. The citations included from TheBlaze and American Thinker seem to be reliable sources. Would the original articles that they cite from Honest Reporting and Arutz 7 be preferable? --PiMaster3 talk 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas claims to have shot down F-16 fighter jet over gaza

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/16/272691/israeli-f16-jet-shot-down-in-gaza/

Not sure how reliable Hamas is but i think we should mention that they claim to have shot down a Isralie jet over Gaza. Pravdavoin (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

I think we should delete the hatnote as per WP:NAMB. ypnypn (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

presstv citation

this citation is wrong, and this is not a POV question. whether you are zionist or anti-zionist, this is plainly misuse of information. in the casualties box on the right, it says "11 militants killed" and then cites press tv, which claims "At least 25 Palestinians, including a senior Hamas commander, have been killed", below on the wikipedia casualty box, it gives "16 Palestinian civilians killed, 3 israeli civilians killed" and cites ynet which claims: "Three people – two men and a woman – were killed in the morning when a rocket hit an apartment building in the city of Kiryat Malachi." (consistent with wikipedia) and "Medical sources in Gaza said that 10 Palestinians were killed in Israeli airstrikes, including Ahmed Jabari." these numbers do not add up to 25 (and come from different times), and the iranian source does not divide the 25 into civilians and non-civilians (whether labelled "militants" or "soldiers" or anything else). new sources are needed which reflect the current body count as confirmed by some independent source (doesn't the red cross have current numbers?), but even if you are to keep these two citations, the iranian one claims 25 dead and neither the iranian nor the israeli source makes any mention of "militants", either among the dead or just in the abstract.

again i repeat, despite my views on the conflict and despite the fact that others disagree with me, the incorrect usage of those two citations for the information wikipedia is claiming is problematic regardless of which "side" you are on, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press TV is not a reliable source and should not be used as one on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - neither are the Israeli authorities - but they are used incessantly as a source throughout the article --212.9.126.106 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is exactly the point. Regardless of how reliable either of them are or how much wikipedia cites them or doesn't, the numbers giving in the infobox do not reflect either ynet or press tv's numbers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit i made when i added the PressTV source seems someone changed the content and forgot to add a new source And calling PressTV not a reliable source is ludacris when you use theblaze and Americanthinker in the same article. The info is also outdated according to the Gaza Health Ministry 30 have been killed and 280 injured Pravdavoin (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter Jet

There was no Israeli Fighter Jet lost. Please remove. 213.57.187.181 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was also wondering where this came from. This is incorrect information. 109.186.109.222 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This video has a list of false claims made by Hamas so far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWSuWFbiYGM 213.57.149.188 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. You guys tried this bullshit during the last offensive as well. Pretending Hamas is wrong because of Israeli posted fake Youtube videos isn't really a great tactic when we have UN and aid organisations actually recording the rising death tolls and war crimes of Israel's invasion. At least learn to hide the IP addresses or use a Youtube account that wasn't made this month, mmkay. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Mourning bombed?

In this article, it says "Israeli forces then targeted civilian areas, killing two more teenagers playing football, then bombed the gathering that was mourning their deaths, killing two more."; is there any way to corroborate this with additional sources? (since this one alone isn't reliable enough) If this is true, it seems a particularly significant detail, that should be noted Arfed (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn't reliable at all. The bombing may have had an entirely different reason.VR talk 03:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source on its own isn't reliable no, but if it's factually true that the mourning for the previous deaths was bombed (whether that was purely accidental or not), that is noteworthy, if another corroborating source can be found. Arfed (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

The Blaze and American Thinker are being used as sources, although neither are reliable. I think they should be removed and better sources found.VR talk 03:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Arutz Sheva, the "voice of the settler movement", is cited numerous times for facts without attribution. I don't think it is a suitable source to be used without attribution (see e.g. [20]). In this case, when we have so many mainstream RS reporting on the topic, I don;t really see the need for resorting to this type of poor quality source. Dlv999 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove Artuz Sheva cites , the list of palestinan rocket attacks has Jpost,ynetnews and haaretz all are much better sources for the same event. also in the background there is a slight error by not adding the rocket attacks on the 4'th and 6'th november and only talking about the rocket attacks on October,when there had been 800 rocket attacks since january 2012 (with the same source).

Mossad involvement

This operation seems to be a joint effort of Shin Bet and IDF, but what about the third and the strongest Israeli force --- the Mossad? Is Mossad involved in this operation? Wandering Courier (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is more of a general discussion on the subject and is not relevant to Wikipedia. If sources can be found to prove Mossad involvement then these would certainly enrich the article, however speculation without citing references or adding to the article does not fall within the bounds of Wikipedia and IMO is more suited for a discussion page on another website.
Regards Sirkus (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012

The figure of "92 rockets fired in October" under the Background section cannot be justified as its reference is not working. It is likely that when this reference was added it was working, but has since been removed or gone offline.

I propose taking out the "92 rockets fired in October", and instead linking the "According to the Israel Security Agency, rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel continually throughout 2012" section of text to the List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 page, which may help provide more context than a single dead link.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards

Sirkus (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[21], [22], [23]71.35.139.215 (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the WSJ and Spectator pieces are opinion/opinion blog pieces so don't meet RS standards for verification of facts. The Christian Science Monitor article is a news report, but it does not mention the 93 rockets figure under discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve your understanding of RS and reread the CSM article since it is there. WP:NEWSBLOG (I agree that it should be attributed to at least the IDF since that is where the numbers were pulled from). Sirkus also should take a look at WP:DEADREF and follow other solutions than removal.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve your understanding of RS- WP:NEWSBLOG :"Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")". As I clearly stated the article is an opinion blog therefore not suitable for verification of facts. (Could be used for the attributed opinion of the author, but would be preferable to find a better source). Dlv999 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used with attribution. But you disregard the main point. While you are arguing against a quick search from Google news which resulted in at least 1 perfectly acceptable RS (CSM, which you failed to read correctly) and 2 sources that could be used with caution, I am arguing for editors to stop pretending the information has not been and is now not available. Why are you and Sirkus spending time trying to remove the information that was available from a PS and was obviously included in good faith? Why are you not doing a Google news search to verify the info? Why are you both ignoring the CSM piece? It very well may not be intentional but it could easily be perceived of scrubbing. How about you spend as much time looking for a valid and valuable piece of information for the reader (an uptick or potentially even doubling of attacks in October) as you do trying to gloss over the info?Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent more time working on the article instead of worrying about what I am doing you might have noticed that the article now claims there were "116 rockets and 55 mortar shells" fired in October, still with the same single dead link as the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link? the link in the reference that comes just after the text you quoted, work.--Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas and PIJ names of their operations

Hamas has a name for their operation: "Sajil (Clay) Stones (حجارة سجيل), while the Palestinian Islamic Jihad has called theirs "Operation Blue Sky" (السماء الزرقاء). The article is not just about the Israeli operation, but rather about the whole flare-up, so I would suggest a more neutral title (e.g. November 2012 Gaza-Israel events) with mentions of what each party calls it. --Fjmustak (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a change along these lines is well overdue. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should be based on consensus. In the mean time, the two other names should be added to the lead. Unflavoured (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction - Ireland

Irish Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore, has condemned the escalation of violence and has called for an immediate cessation of violence.

Tánaiste calls for end to Gaza violence

109.78.121.119 (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relevance?

In the "Pre-operation events" section it stated that: "On 5 November, Israeli soldiers killed an unarmed mentally-unfit[40] 20-year-old Palestinian when he neared the Gaza–Israel border fence. According to Palestinian medics, the man had learning difficulties. On the 5th of November a Palestinian road side bomb exploded and Israeli soldiers were injured."

I am not sure why the victim mental state is highlighted or mentioned at all?! (While it is unfortunate, he died because he entered a military zone and didn't heed warning shots, the soldiers had no of knowing if he had a disability, ak47 or suicide vest) It is the only place, the victim personal circumstance are used(using his mental state in an effort elicit emotion?) either remove it or add the same perspective for the other side, for example in the rocket attack in Israel died 2 family man, working for living, who got blown to pieces because the hamas shoot rockets incandescently at civilian population.--Mor2 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant. it means the man was not showing defiance. No one is blaming the soldier. It's a tragic circumstance, and we need these details to appreciate that.--vvarkey (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why mention it twice and why is his age mentioned(again the only instance such in the article)? How about something like this, which is informative and not biased(at least IMO):
"On 5 November, a Palestinian was killed while approaching the border and failing to heed warnings. According to Palestinian medics, the man had learning difficulties. On the 5th of November a Palestinian road side bomb exploded and Israeli soldiers were injured."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vvarkey your response highlights exactly why it is inappropriate to include in the text there. You say "it means the man was not showing defiance" , but that is mere opinion. Is it impossible for someone with learning difficulties to show defiance? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UAE reaction

http://www.7daysindubai.com/UAE-condemns-Israeli-aggression-Gaza-voices/story-17348932-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashytash (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 12 rockets

The section gives the impression that the rocket attacks from Gaza on Nov 12 are disputed. I've added another source (Bloomberg) and some details. The exact number of rockets seems unclear, e.g. haveeru claims 11, Bloomberg says over a dozen, and IDF says twelve. I don't know if haveeru is "reputable", but if they are, they have a picture of a damaged house, and lists organizations taking responsibility.

Ketil (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing numbers

The article seems to compare the number of Palestinian victims with the amount of Hamas ammunition used. In what way is the amount of ammunition important enough for the lede, and if it is, why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of rockets fired into Israel is clearly a very relevant part of the situation and article. it is appropriate for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that it is important because it is clearly important. Right.
Does someone have a better explanation? Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rocket fire is clearly one of the primary issues of this conflict, the idea we would leave it out when many media outlets are reporting on the number of rocket attacks on Israel is unacceptable. The introduction does clearly state that there have been hundreds of Israeli airstrikes. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man: I don't doubt that the rocket fire is important, I'm asking why the lede does an inventory on Hamas, but not on Israel. I also doubt that it would be "unacceptable" to leave out a piece of information from the lede, just because it is reported by the media. Please point out the policy stating this (exactly this).
My question remains unanswered: Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is not about basic ammunition, this is about the number of actual rocket attacks..which are each incidents, the different types of rockets are notable because they impact on distance etc. I believe the article should clearly reference the number of air strikes carried out by Israel as that is notable too, it currently says hundreds.. but if there are specific figures as we have for the terrorist rocket fire then that should be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the ammount of strikes carried by Israel is notable as well. --Mor2 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Basic ammunition"? Israeli weapons are much more effective than some rockets from the middle of last century. How many of the Hamas rockets actually did damage? If not all did, why is the number of rockets fired more important than the number of bombs doing actual damage?
Again, Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The number of rocket attacks is notable, the fact they are primitive and of limited success for hamas is no reason not to include the information. I do not accept your premise that the ammunition is being emphasized over the number of victims. The introduction clearly states the loss of life on both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You again just repeat your claim, and give no reason. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, please don't say anything at all.
The effectiveness of a weapon is of paramount importance. Every child knows the number of nuclear weapons used, and with a short web search you can find the total number of test explosions. How many bullets were used in WWII? How many rifles? If Hamas rockets do almost no damage, their number is meaningless.
The initial number of rockets is in the very first sentence, the total number later, before mentioning any victims they have caused. If that is not emphasizing, what is it? The amount of detail is also noteworthy, the lede implies knowledge over the amount of weapons (not only projectiles) used. ("over 500 [...] mortars")
Again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What it seems todo is to provide a proper introduction to the topic of the article in the lead. --Mor2 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question is: Is it proper? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
proper is the domain of point of view. --Mor2 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be. I ask again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So by your logic the 9/11 article "emphasis" planes or "compare" terrorist numbers with victims?! Please don't make ridicules comparisons. That "ammunition" or rather a weapon of terror, that is used indiscriminately to target civilian population, when this is google is my friend is your daily routine, I dont see anything none "proper" to state the amount of "ammunition" they had to suffer before they went to this operation.--Mor2 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there ammunition mentioned in the 9/11 article? Was it even used in the attack? I think I'm not the one making ridiculous comparison. I also am not the one with an apparent POV in this matter. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add to this conversation that every time a rocket attack is fired against Israel, an Air-raid siren is sounded. This gives civilians time to reach bomb shelters. Which means everything must stop in the area, so civilians can run to safety. Therefore, the number of rocket attacks made is noteworthy. Perhaps this background information should be provide so people are not confused about why these numbers are given. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to explain that the attacks are wrong and have a terrible effect on the population. I still don't see why the amount of ammunition used is important enough for the lede. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a great idea. Right now we can't understand from the text the danger and damage those rockets impose, they are regarded as primitive and meaningless, not as something that can disrupt the lives of one third of the Israeli civilian population(several millions), ond daily basis, sending them to the air raid shelters... --Mor2 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But can they be regarded as disruptive if most of them don't have victims, ie. are literally harmless? Why is a similar level of detail to spend to describe the "disruptiveness" of the Israeli attacks? --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, somebody firing hundreds of rockets at somebody is notable. Removing this information would be daft. OTOH, I think there's a good case for including the number of missions, air strikes, or similar by the IDF. Any numbers available? Is IDF OK as a source? Ketil (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you just entered the discussion by calling me stupid, and with a straw man. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you stupid, but I think your argumentation is. The number of rockets is important, as it is Israel's primary justification for the attacks. That they are "ammunition" or what other conflict articles say, isn't relevant. Ketil (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anyone calling you stupid, im afraid that it does appear you are in a minority though. Most seem to have no problem with the introduction stating the figures in question and people who have replied have supported their inclusion. We just need additional stats on Israeli airstrikes etc and they would be worthy of inclusion too. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you try to score with a fallacy, ie. lie: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only fallacy here is yours. Every article on wikipidea about operations, first outline the reason/goals, then outline the result.--Mor2 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all the above, Hamas's goal in firing all those rockets is hurting civilians. The reason of the relatively few Israeli casualties are the air-raid sirens and the Iron Dome system, neither of which is foolproof. It is not the rockets that are ineffective, (indeed, look what great damage was caused by the few rockets that were not intercepted by Iron Dome) but Israel's defences that are extremely effective. If I am attacked in the street by four armed men but manage to escape through having studied martial arts, it is not the same as not having been attacked. Therefore, the number of rockets launched at Israel by Hamas is relevant. In addition, even when a rocket does not take lives, it destroys buildings - people's homes. And as for the Iron Dome, each of its missiles costs $62,000 ([4]). Thus, when the Hamas rockets don't cause damage, they take a heavy toll on Israel economy. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that their effect is mostly psychological, which is exactly their intended purpose, hamas intentionally target civilians to terrorise them (i.e. terrorist). See also Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Effects. --Mor2 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you normally can't use youtube videos as sources, but the IDF has "recap videos" which state how many air strikes they have performed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udmwJ9Wfj5g&feature=share 213.57.149.188 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jerusalem being targeted be in the introduction too?

The introduction mentions that a rocket hit Tel Aviv for he first time since the first gulf war, is it not also notable to include afterwards that Israel's capital Jerusalem was also targeted? [24] [25] etc BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. And it should be mentioned that the rocket hit a Palestinian village in Gush Etzion area, see [26]. 213.57.187.181 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Image

Right now the first image in the article is a photo of a bombed Israeli apartment. Should we return it to the map of Gaza in order to be more neutral? Dhawk790 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Plus a map is helpful. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some trouble finding the original image to make the switch. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Don't worry about it, already done. I moved the new one down. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - damaged references

Two of the references given have been recently damaged - perhaps inadvertently - by an edit made by user under name "Superzohar". And by an other edit by Wikitiki89 without any explanation. May I ask for their restoration? Thank you.-188.122.215.2 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done By Mor2 (talk · contribs). (diff) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.188.122.215.2 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant women killed

This article gives mention to a pregnant Palestinian woman who was killed in the fighting, but there is no mention of the fact that a pregnant Israeli woman was also killed by a rocket. Right now only editors with accounts are allowed to edit the article, so can someone with an account please fix this? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source which says this? If one is already cited within the article, would you mind pointing it out? Jonathanfu (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
here - [27] - "Memorial candles that were lit for the three Israeli victims including a pregnant mother, who were killed by a Gaza rocket attack an apartment building in Kiryat Malachi on Thursday morning, November 15." 213.57.187.181 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily  Done, with the caveat that I do not have an opinion whether or not qualifying descriptors of the civilian casualties (e.g. pregnant, children) should be included; was done per request and for temporary balance between the Palestinian and Israeli casualties. Feel free to remove with further discussion. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you need some more sources, here: [28] - "Scharf was the mother of three children, and was pregnant with a fourth." [29] - "Scharf was also pregnant - she came to Israel in order to give birth, but arrived early to attend the Holtzberg memorial." [30] - "The rocket that hit Kiryat Malachi, a working-class town a few miles from Gaza, struck a four-story residential building. Three people were killed and seven injured, including small children, the Israeli government said. Two men and a pregnant mother of three died, the government said." [31] - "A pregnant Israeli missionary, who had returned to her country to give birth, died in the arms of a neighbour, surrounded by the jumble of debris to which a Hamas rocket had reduced her home." [32] - "Mrs. Sharf was pregnant when she was killed." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I see no reason why we should add such info at all, victims are victims, but in some entries reflect their age, mental state or occupation and in other they are not. This information is readily available, if start adding it for every victim on the list, we are going to get a long list of nothing instead of informational article on the operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why must everyone push their POV?

I dont understand why every time one of these conflicts occurs, everyone has to slant it their way. The fact that we are editing Wikipedia, I think, makes us all adults here, whether we are 13 or 90. We are, in a way, a step above the general population. Many of us are veteran, established editors. Others are newer. Some just came on to whack the article with their nonsense. For once, can we be reasonable and not try to make human talking points in every little paragraph. "Mentally disabled shot by soldiers" "pregnant woman killed by IDF or Hamas rocket" (both occurred I think) etc. Who cares. I have a bias in this conflict too, but I am usually able to set that aside for editing. The debate over what to call Hamas operatives? Fighters, militants, soldiers, terrorists? Holy crap. I hear garbage arguments from both sides. They are terrorists. They are soldiers, albeit unorganized. This is ridiculous. Its a freaking word.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I an inclined to think its better to write such articles an year after operation has ended.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metallurgist, I definitely agree with you that it is ridiculous that people are forcing their POV. However the word terrorist applied to either side is forcing a POV since it's usually a negative connotation. For the IDF and Hamas, we should use the term soldier as it is a neutral term. Derpian (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we should use the term militant, to seek to try and pretend that the hamas side is a conventional military force is biased and totally unacceptable. Many sources describe them as militants and that is appropriate for this article. It would be POV to call them soldiers. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAMAS is the democratically elected governing body of a nation. They have their own military. Who has uniforms, a hierarchy, emblems and flags. Seeing as Israel keeps calling on-duty military deaths of their citizens "civilian deaths from terrorist attacks", you're going to have to make up your mind as to either have Israel labelled terrorists or call the Hamas military exactly what they are...soldiers. I strongly suggest everyone attempt to edit out the use of militant with "soldier" and report anyone who removes that edit. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

1RR Reminder and Sanctions under "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles" (WP:ARBPIA)

Reminder, this a 1RR page and anyone who violates it can be blocked vai Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If here are editors who avoid 1RR but are repeatedly deleting NPOV properly sourced material in order to favor either side, as I see there are complaints, they may be reported to WP:ARPBIA. (But make sure you've been perfect or you might be blocked too.) Does anyone know how to put the 1rr warning on top of article edit page? CarolMooreDC 06:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Truce between Israel and Palestine 14 Nov 2012 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/2012111316357186271.html

Israel confiscates television broadcast equipment in West Bank, Nov 14 2012 http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/israel-throttles-palestinian-television/

Israel kills al-Jabari (who signed the truce) Thursday 15 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/israel-assassinates-hamas-military-chief

So who is the aggressor? 77.22.107.82 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of the subject. If you have a RS to cite for the improvement of the article, fine, bring it forward - but do not argue who is right/wrong on this issue - that is not Wiki's purpose. This is an encyclopedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for you to tell him what not to write here. The timeline of events is extremely relevant, and is missing from the article. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are MORE than relevant to the article. Include them. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

More unreliable sources?

This blog and this blog entry from honest reporting both don't seem to meet the criteria of reliable sources.VR talk 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anything they say should be removed or better sources found. CarolMooreDC 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The section they are used in also has WP:OVERCITE issues, and appears to use POV sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first blog should definitely be removed. However, the report by HonestReporting was directly referred to by mainstream press so should be included.Ankh.Morpork 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also show the raw footage, where you can clearly see the "victim" of an airstrike, walking away unharmed a few minutes later, after the cameras where turned off.--Mor2 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have included the mainstream source that reference HonestReporting.com, but removed HonestReporting.com itself.
This is the logic of not using unreliable sources: if only unreliable sources make an argument, we remove that argument. If both reliable and unreliable sources make an argument, we use the reliable sources and remove the unreliable ones.VR talk 05:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 November

A 8 month old girl was killed on Thursday (15 November) afternoon when her house was shelled by the IDF. Source: [33].

The material was inappropriately deleted from the article [34]with the erroneous claim that "there is no record of a girl". the section is not consistent with WP:NPOV, three paragraphs are devoted to describing the attacks on Israel and Israeli casualties, while the attacks on Gaza has been reduced to two sentences enumerating the Palestinian fatalities. Restoration of this well sourced information would be a step towards moving the section to NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of several edits, please look at section as whole and yes there was/is no record here of a girl/anyone, dying that day before that afternoon attack. The event was misplaced in the section timeline, repeating events already told later on. We have a record that 15 dead and that two of them were childrem(second/first source) in that specific attack. --Mor2 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it says: "Palestinian sources said that 15 people were killed in Gaza as a result of the IAF strikes, including five militants and two children during the airstrikes.", so what do you want, add that "One of them have been a 8 month old girl" ?! --Mor2 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the whole section and that is what I made my judgement on. Deleting the well sourced details about 11 month old Palestinian girl being killed, but including the details of a 11 month old Israeli that was injured is not neutral editing. Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing todo with bias, I removed the girl because it was repetition and didn't fit the timeline. The other section was unsourced, so I added 2 cite needed request before anything can be dont. Further more I have complained several times on this talk page about the addition of such info, so this has nothing todo with my edit.--Mor2 (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did fit the timeline, if you had read the source before deleting it you would know she was killed by shelling in the afternoon. Dlv999 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That not how I seen it, can you simply provide a second source that show it was not part of the attacks after 7PM.--Mor2 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source says that an 18 month old girl was killed by Israeli shelling in the afternoon. If we are going to describe that an 11 month old Israeli child was injured we are also going to describe that an 18month old Palestinian girl was killed. Dlv999 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that deleting whatever they don't want to be seen has become the favoured mechanism of several editors on here. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon as in before 7PM or after? If it was before, you shouldn't have a problem finding a second source to support your claim and then you can easily add that event to the timeline. As for your repeated claim about bias, I said what I had to say in my previous comment. We surely don't lack 'Mentally disabled' and 'pregnant woman' shot by the IDF. --Mor2 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2 - there is no rule requiring more than one reliable source. It is unreasonable to suggest that deleting his contribution is justifiable because 'afternoon might mean later than 7pm'. --Moemin05 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is if I think that this event is already covered by the next paragraph. --Mor2 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian National Coalition

This organisation has posted a reaction to the conflict, which can be seen here [35], and I think that the group should be added to the 'international reactions' section of this article. And this - [36] article can be cited as well.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is hardly a reliable source sort of material - it's also in arabic, this is the English wiki. The Blaze - seems a bit "tabloid" - I'm sure these statements will be reflected in a solid news organization soon enough.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bing translation that FB provides, and the statement is an official one by the SNC on their social media page.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Minister comment in lede

User: Dlv999 inserted the comment of the Interior Minister regarding Gaza in the lede of the article.[37] This is a gross POV edit. The Interior Minister does not decide defense or military related matters and his comment has correctly not been given the much attention in reliable sources. This belongs in the main part of the article (where strangely enough DLV99 did not bother adding the content). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol editconflict, i was just about to post:
"Currently the first paragraph includes the line "Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai stated that "the goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.",. I do not believe that one persons quote is suitable for the opening paragraph of this article, it could just as easily quote from numerous other Government officials too so why him? I think this should be removed. A needless addition to the intro".
I agree it should be removed from the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is a member of the Israeli Security Cabinet, so he is intimately involved in the decision making process of the Israeli government in these matters. As an Israeli government minister on the Security Cabinet, who's opinion has been published in numerous RS it is certainly a significant opinion on the topic and merits inclusion in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are states goals by Defense Ministers, Foreign Ministers, and many other ministers who are move involved and whose comments are more credible. Why would you choose this specific controversial comment and shove it into the lede only? This looks like gross POV editing on your part. I would advise to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ridiculous inclusion to the lead; cherry-picking the words of one of various government officials and unduly inserting them in the lead smacks of tendentious editing. This and the views of Morsi should be included in the responses section and not accorded undue prominence. Ankh.Morpork 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For further sources reporting the ministers statement see The BBC, The Independent The Guardian, The Herald Scotland, Global Post, World News Australia, The Toronto Star, Alakhbar, Haaretz, Salon, Maan News Agency. But I get the feeling sourcing isn't the issue here. Our job here is not to run a PR exercise for Israel, it is to represent viewpoints that have appeared in RS. this viewpoint has been widely published and is certainly relevant to the article. I will not self revert as I stand by the edit, nut I am happy to accept whatever consensus develops on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining why you chose one minister's comment over the comments of other far more relevant ministers? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a very widely reported viewpoint in RS. The minister is a member of Israel's Security Cabinet so is intimately involved in the decision making process. Our NPOV policy states that we represent all viewpoints per their prominence in RS. So if you are saying my addition is POV, you must show that another quote from another Israeli mister has received wider RS coverage (ie is more prominent in RS) than this particular quote. If that can be shown then I think you would have a case for moving Yishai's comments out of the lead. But so far your arguments aren't based on the source evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should go in the International reaction section, along with other minister comments.Dhawk790 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also it should be noted, it is mentioned in some of the sources that as well as being interior minister, Yeshi is a Deputy Prime minister. Dlv999 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with his comments being in the article, but they do not belong in the introduction. Does the introduction have a large quote from the Prime Minister? clearly superior to the interior minister? Or the defence minister? It is not valid for one persons comments to be there, unless u also include other comments too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its clear violation of WP:NPOV to put him in the lead.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking quotes is a blatant example of tendentious editing. Ignoring the statements issued by both the Prime Minister and Defence Ministries in favor of a quote by a lesser official smacks of POV pushing. Poliocretes (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike To state in an edit summary that something is undue for the lead, but then to actually delete it entirely from the article seems odd. Especially as no one here seems to be suggesting that the material should be removed from the article. I wonder if you could explain that to me Shrike.
@Poliocretes, Okay, so know quoting Israel's deputy Prime minister on the aims of the offensive, published in copious International RS is "tendentious". I wonder why that is. Because what he said does not fit the official Israeli narrative, and that means it must be purged from the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It being in the lead was totally inappropriate and has rightly been removed. If someone wants to start a Israeli reaction or israeli govnerment reaction section where different ministers of Israelis government are quoted they can. The important thing is the unacceptable inclusion of one ministers comments has now been rightly removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipidia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Unless you've got an RS that says it represents official Israeli policy rather than the opinion of one member of the Israeli government, it's no more than an anecdote, even if an interesting one. Poliocretes (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "reaction", a deputy prime minister of Israel and member of the security council stating what Israel's objectives are. The commentator is clearly significant as he is deputy prime minister and member of the Security cabinet. The opinion has been published widely in international RS. A core policy of the encyclclopedia (WP:NPOV, states that we represent all significant views that have been published by RS on a topic, not just the viewpoints that happen to fit with the official Israeli narrative of events. Dlv999 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deputy prime minister calling on his military to 'send Gaza to the middle ages' is not significant?! --Moemin05 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One persons comments are not significant for the introduction of an article on a military operation. If any Israeli politician is to be quoted it should be either the PM or defence minister for obvious reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comments belong in the article, but not in the lede.VR talk 05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there hardly pictures on the page showing bombings in Gaza ?

Most pictures show Qassam rockets which ended up in Israel. Why? There are plenty of pictures showing bombings in Gaza, which could be put on this Wikipedia page. The bombings in Gaza caused far more death people and destruction, so it doesn't seem logical that the vast majority of the pictures on the page shown the impact of Qassam rockets. Tijs schelstraete (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be more pictures of the destruction in Gaza.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There might not be a lot people in Gaza with stable access to the internet right now. If we can find some, we should post them.VR talk 05:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone have a source for copyright free images of the destruction in Gaza, I hope that they post them, or at least link to them in the discussion, so that others can post them. PerDaniel (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current map is of strikes during the *last* Gaza conflict. Isn't that confusing? Ketil (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fixed now. Ketil (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate

Why does the lede picture show just the effects of Hamas rockets? This is completely non-neutral. What we need is a picture that shows the affected areas in both Israel and Gaza. Anything else is one-sided and not appropriate.

For that matter, why does every picture, bar one, have to do with the effects of Hamas' rockets? What about all the damage and far more deaths and injuries caused by Israel's bombing? Seriously, until this is fixed and the images evened out, we should remove most of the Israel images. SilverserenC 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see neither type of pictures, especially not the Hamas made(death shouldn't be use as PR tool). I'd prefer if someone can acquire/make maps similiar to the one in this link [38] which would be far more informative, giving a refernce point to the event in the text. --Mor2 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely disagree, it is totally appropriate for the map to show gaza and the ranges of the rocket fire. That is exactly what this whole article is about. It provides useful information. no objection to additional images showing the impact of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza throughout the article though. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mor2. Until then, I think the current map is OK as it at least shows the entire area of hostilities. And I don't think the pictures are too one-sided, but I do agree there is some imbalance and that there should probably be a picture of a destroyed building in Gaza. Capscap (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the users editing this page in favor of the Israeli narrative are literally being paid to do this by the Hasbara department within the Israeli foreign ministry.

the Wiki admins do not care about neutrality, just who has the most numbers.

--Savakk (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without accusing admins of bias, I do agree that a more neutral picture should be used for the infobox. What it's showing is the highlighting of areas in southern Israel that come within the range of various types of Hamas rockets and the caption reads "areas affected by the conflict." The Gaza Strip, where the overwhelming majority of the casualties have been is not even highlighted. For now or until a more fitting picture could be found, the current infobox picture should be replaced with a map simply depicting southern Israel and the Gaza Strip. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that map. The previous map was of gaza alone, this one show both locations and is far more informative, providing reference to the information discussed in the article. What can I say I am no rocket experts or Israel geographer and it helps me. If you have a better map please suggest it in the infobox section above. (Also the initial caption included "gaza" but someone removed it as NPOV thing. I guess you can't appease everyone) --Mor2 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Savakk, do you have any reliable sources to verify these accusations, or is it a gut feeling because when all facts are presented you don't like the picture it paints? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomæd; Israel doesn´t hide they have tons of people active on wikipedia to change objective information. You can watch on youtube a video of people active in "hasbarah" ("Israeli propaganda") workshops explaining in an interview how they manipulate articles to their zionist point of views. It´s no secret.Tijs schelstraete (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

This article only gives Israeli casualties up through November 15, and the conflict is still ongoing. It needs to be updated. By contrast, the figure for Palestinian deaths and injuries is up through November 18. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because, except for a few dozen injuries, there haven't been any deaths among Israelis, except those three civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide updates figures and sources for the Israeli casualties? Ankh.Morpork 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a report that gives a total figure for Israeli injuries, but there are various news reports of individual incidents:
November 16 - 5 injured Ashdod and 4 in the Eshkol area [39]
November 17 - 16 injured between 0900 and 2100 [40]
November 18 - 4 injured in Ashkelon [41], 2 in Ashkelon [42][43], 1 in Ashkelon [44], 1 in Sha'ar Hanegev [45], 1 near Kiryat Arba and 15 in Ofakim [46]
Shimon Ben-Hamu (23) of Tekoa was killed on Saturday night. [47]
That is a total of 49 injuries. This list is incomplete, but I think the article can be updated to mention Ben-Hamu and say that the Israeli injuries have surpassed 100. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killed militants

There was a section on the article listing killed militants, the information provided was useful and it was appropriate for this article on a military operation, when clearly taking out militants that are firing rockets is the core reason for the operation. The entire section has now sadly been removed and with it valid and notable information. It has been removed on the claim that there is a consensus no such detail should be provided in this article. I do not believe that is the case. There is a big difference between agreeing not to list individual civilians killed on either side of the conflict,compared to listing based on reliable sourced known militants that are killed, particularly as this operation started with the killing of someone from HAMAS, other individuals who are noted and named in the media seem justified for inclusion in a list too. It would be easier to put all such information in one section, rather than people having to read each days operation update or the casualty section which is going to be focusing more on civilians.

What are peoples thoughts? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this thread is a continuation of Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#List_of_Hamas_militants_killed. And you're right, I don't really see consensus being reached, there's only been like 6 editors providing input and I think 4 against and 2 for, we definitely could use more input. That being said, I stand by my opinion in that thread, not every militant listed was notable. There are probably tens of thousands of Hamas militants, not all of them are notable. Listing the names of each one would be, in my opinion, analogous to listing the names of each IDF soldier killed in the conflict. Unless detailed information is available to support their notability, I think it's fair to assume most are simply Hamas footsoldiers. Besides, given the number of Hamas militants, taking out the militants who fire the rockets is probably not the IDF's priority, I would think they would be targeting the rocket systems as there should be fewer of those. Jonathanfu (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for removal and there still isn't. Everyone is all worried about the list getting too long. How about we worry about that problem when we get there?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a separate page listing victims (or individual strikes with results/casualties - we are unlikely to get all the names)? Similar perhaps for a list of international reactions. Ketil (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some well-sourced criticism of Israel's PR efforts related to Operation Pillar of Defense. Specifically, some opinions from reliable sources about their twitter campaign and some about the gamification of the IDF blog. The criticism is well-sourced and I believe of appropriate weight. Feel free to reword it as you feel necessary, but please do not remove it completely without prior discussion on the talk page. (I could add in another dozen high quality sources issuing significant criticism of this aspect of operation pillar of defense. I haven't done so because that seems like it would just be source-stacking... but given how much criticism is being published in reliable sources about it, I think it would be a significant POV issue to not include a mention of it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that, but I am surprised that you manged to write more on IDF effort to provide legitimate information about its actions, than presented on the Palestinian fabrications and cynical use of dead for PR purpose.--Mor2 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is to present encyclopedic information that has been relayed by reliable sources. There's a bunch of criticism in reliable sources of Israel's PR efforts, thus they should have a decent sized section here. If you feel the section dealing with Hamas' apparent media deceptions isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to find some reliable sources and expand it in a neutral way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article will never reach NPOV because there are Israelis dedicating themselves to keeping it biased. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Under "Netherlands" it should read either "responsible for" or "guilty of," not "guilty for." I would have edited the page myself, but I understand this can be done only by authorized editors.

Bombs?

I know that this is probably due to the fact that all the reliable sources are not covering it or that Israel isn't releasing the information, but do we have any coverage on the number of bombs dropped on Gaza? It seems like there's very specific coverage of every rocket launched by Hamas, but not of bombs dropped by the IDF. I'm not sure if this is a sourcing issue or something else. SilverserenC 04:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if they have the number of bombs dropped. However, the number of air strikes should be available. I believe the latest is over 800.[48]. Not sure if that includes artillery or naval fire. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as far as I can tell available. I would be surprised if Israel releases it. If I find it somewhere I'll add it though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of strikes

I found a good one! Here it is.] It reads, "But Israel’s most senior officials appear keen to maintain the approval of Western governments, both by emphasizing that Gaza militants provoked the assault by firing hundreds of missiles toward Israeli communities, and by arguing their answering offensive — more than 1,350 air, tank and warship strikes so far — is both fierce and restrained." The nice part is that it includes all of the strikes, not just the air ones. And I didn't know that there were tank strikes. It's too bad we don't have a breakdown of the three types, i'll keep looking for a source for that.

Can someone who's more familiar with the structure of the article fit in this info and source? SilverserenC 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find a source that explains what does it mean that with 1350 strikes, there are less than 100 dead and at least half of them militants. --Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Sadallah

I have moved the death of Mahmoud Sadallah to Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#16_November. The phrase says "the boy's mother acknowledged that Palestinian militants may have been responsible". But the source says "Mohammed’s mother, was too bereft to apportion blame. It was possible he was struck by a rocket fired by Palestinian fighters, she said. It was also possible he was killed in an Israeli strike, she added, although nobody had heard the sound of a drone or plane in the sky just before the explosion."

I don't think that the article is fairly representing Sadallah's mother's views.VR talk 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be thoroughly checked. In the Casualties section alone I have found there to be a decent amount of information that was not mentioned by the source, even when there were several sources cited to the claim. There's a little bit of POVish OR as well such as depicting Palestinian health officials as "Hamas" officials even though the sources just state "Gaza official" or "health ministry official". --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too have found that there's a lot of information in this article that has a citation but is not actually present in the cited source. I've fixed some of it and will work on more gradually. Unless it manages to get in better shape pretty quickly, I feel like the twinkle tag about misrepresenting sources may be needed... Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific details on Sadallah, and other casualties, belong in the Timeline, and not Casualties. The casualties section does not discuss who killed who, or under what circumstances. It also doesn't list names of those killed (agreed above). The Timeline, on the other hand, is for details on attacks, and who was killed under what circumstances.VR talk 13:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source states: "But there were signs on Saturday that not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicised death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket..." This is a comment on the casualties, the clue being in the word "casualties". Ankh.Morpork 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how we organize things. Many sources use the word "casualties" in reference to very specific details about an event. We can't have specific details about an event in the casualties section, otherwise its will basically swell, as there have been tens of Palestinian casualties. A proposed compromise would be to leave a statement saying that the death of at least one Palestinian may have been due to a Palestinian rocket, but the details of how this happened need to be in the timeline.VR talk 15:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnkhMorpork disagrees with my replacement of "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" with "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have died from a Palestinian rocket, although this is disputed." I'm open to different wordings. But I do insist that the wording be clear that this was one casualty (not "some").VR talk 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-neutral unsourced sentence fragment

Could someone please revert this edit or rewrite it to be neutral, sourced, and not a sentence fragment? I would do so myself, but I'm the person who deleted it the first time around. I'm sure the meat of the statement can be appropriate integrated in to the article, but as it stands, it isn't appropriate - it's a nonneutral sentence fragment without a reasonable source. (I asked mor about this on his talk page hoping he'd selfrevert and he asked me to just post here instead.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I encounter not cited sources, I add {{cite needed}}. You decided to remove it(just as with the other edit), so I added it with a source and I asked you to post here if you have further issues. I am still not sure which part of it you consider uncensored or non neutral, if you an be more specific we can improve it.
Personally, I am not military or rocket scientist, I don't understand between 10, 797 and 2000 rockets.(or later, 46 miles range) So I'd appreciate less math book numbers and more basic info that put that into context.--Mor2 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read WP:RS and then go read WP:NOR. The source you added is not, by Wikipedia standards, an acceptable source for a statement like that. It is also, literally, a sentence fragment, and written in not precisely neutral language. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used that source because it is in English, so people here can understand and evulate it. If you look at foot notes, its the info from the Israel official Census Bureau[49]) considering that the only information used from there is the number of population and percent living in the south, I see no POV issues. However, if you want I can find a more "reliable" source than the official Census Bureau, in form of any number of newspapers(like most do).
I still don't understand what do you mean by "not precisely neutral language". Do you mean the part about disruption of live, that people need to go to bomb shelters and that schools are canceled? if so please suggest a more neutral variant --Mor2 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used that source because it is in English, so people here can understand and evulate it. If you look at foot notes, its the info from the Israel official Census Bureau[50]) considering that the only information used from there is the number of population and percent living in the south, I see no POV issues. However, if you want I can find a more "reliable" source than the official Census Bureau, in form of any number of newspapers(like most do).
I still don't understand what do you mean by "not precisely neutral language". Do you mean the part about disruption of live, that people need to go to bomb shelters and that schools are canceled? if so please suggest a more neutral variant --Mor2 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read WP:NOR. For a statement like this, we can't use a primary source that says a million people live in South Israel; we need a source that says that a million people living in south Israel have frequently been forced to close their schools and frequent bomb shelters as a result of escalating rocket fire during the time period the sentence is talking about. I'm pretty sure such a source exists, but citing primary census data doesn't count. It also needs to be a complete sentence, and integrated in to the paragraph around it. (I have neutrality nitpicks with it, but the whole "it's an unsourced sentence fragment" is a bigger issue for now.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid a point, I'll get back to you with the info.--Mor2 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I found almost a direct quote of what you asked: "Since January, Gaza militants have fired 750-800 rockets into Israel, forcing many of the estimated one million civilians in the Negev to repeatedly head into bomb shelters and close their schools"[51]. Other sources to support this: mutilple instance of schools been closed down due to rocket barges, technical site, stating that 15 percent of the entire population are at risk and additional info on how Shelters, Warning_systems and map of alarm zones(regarding the time that they have to duck and cover). I think there is more than enough sourced info here so that we can edit the sentence in more neutral way. If not I can add more to your taste(there isn't really a shortage of documentation) --Mor2 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The facts presented show Israel started it

The facts presented so far in the article, which before JIDF sock puppets start complaining are sourced from the Israeli government themselves for most, show that during a ceasefire in which a truce was being brokered...Israel assassinated the military leader of Hamas and then began bombing civilian areas they claimed Hamas was storing weapons in, despite the fact the ordinances couldn't possibly do anything but harm civilians.

So, okay, Israel broke a ceasefire and assassinated a military leader of their enemy.

Then, according to Israeli sources, Hamas began attacking Israel.

Now from the looks of it, people are desperately trying to portray that somehow Hamas firing rockets BEFORE the ceasefire relates in any way to the reason Israel broke a ceasefire it had agreed upon. And people are even trying to portray the rockets fired AFTER the ceasefire was broken by Israel as Hamas breaking the ceasefire.

Can anyone explain how the article is being portrayed like that when the facts clearly show Israel started the conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any relevant cease fire (only talk about negiotations, and a 3h one during Egypt's visit) mentioned in the article? Also, I think discussing who "started it" is non-productive, this is an ancient conflict with tit-for-tats over several centuries. Write a blog if you want to pin blame. Ketil (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some bits about the ceasefire, it seems there were talks, but it's not clear that there was any actual agreement. After, it says there were no casualties, but I think we should mention rocket attacks and retaliations. The former is listed on WP: [[52]], but I couldn't find anything credible on the latter. Ketil (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see "who started it", see the time line of the conflict and its context see Gaza–Israel conflict, this is about the operation. --Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with all of this is that there's details that are impossible for anyone to know (besides Israel and the Palestinians). For example, we do know that Jabari was in the midst of brokering a long term ceasefire/peace treaty with Israel when he was killed. Now, the question is, was this brokering in the midst of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel? The main response would be no, because rockets were still being fired just before. However, therein lies the problem. Even the article shows that problem. The article says that "Palestinian militants" were firing the rockets and that, as is obvious, is incredibly vague. Was it Hamas who were firing those rockets or one or more of the numerous other terrorist groups in the region that were firing them?

That's what's impossible for us to determine. It's possible that Hamas was abiding by a ceasefire and all the rockets being fired during that time frame were from the other terrorist groups. It's also possible that Hamas was breaking the ceasefire and continuing to send rockets. The problem is, it's impossible for us to know that or to determine which is true. And if Israel knows the truth, there's no way it would acknowledge it, as it would only be hurting it's own position. So...was there a ceasefire or not? No idea. All we know is that a long term ceasefire was under discussion when the IDF killed Jabari in response to rocket attacks earlier that week. SilverserenC 10:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the previous operation, Hamas has showed real effort to contain any attacks on Israel(its own or terrorist groups). However, in the last couple of years it control became laxed again, even if they do apprehend those responsible, they are released. Additionally they have moved some operations to sini sector(where Egypt control has been shaky for sometime and easier to by pass the military) and continue to target civilian population in Israel, with increasin frequency. Overall whenever I encounter something related to aggression in the middle east section, its always tied up to the Hamas in Gaza, While peace and talking tied up with the PA in west bank. I guess that when you want to shoot you shoot. --Mor2 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Studying incidents shorn of context is futile. Most reportage on this is useless, because it consists of propaganda battles. As it stands, the lead, reflecting the bias of sources, tells the story of Israel as victim, singling out a few incidents, and ignoring the complexities of the unending flexing of muscles, respectively by a regional superpower and an extended shanty town. The fact is that this is one more example of a tit-for-tat campaign in which there is no point to saying 'who started it'?, because these conflicts are continuous with a deep past which is grounded in an ineluctable clash between two irreconciliable designs, between a state that wants all that territory, and a people on that territory that wants a distinct state of its own. Using rush-to-print-with-the-latest- 'update' news sources, we are essentially selecting spin on incidents that, in themselves, have no meaning outside of the long-term conflict. Almost no source notes that most of these rockets from Gaza hit desert land, whereas most of Israel's rocketry is directed by the most advanced teleguided pinpoint weaponry, and hits habitations.
Here are two reflections on the wider historical context by eminent foreign policy analysts.
I just read both of those and they're really nice overviews on the subject that denigrates both sides for the idiocy of this conflict. You should go ahead and include them in the article. SilverserenC 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This an article about an operation and the Palestine response to it. Nothing unique about it, it is conducted like any other operation on wikipidea, most of which took place as part of wider conflict. As for your opinion, I find your summary of what the people want very simplistic and biased, which I find very ironic, in light of your intro where you state how complex the situation is. Regardless, unless you have a specific request, a forum might be a better outlet for a discussion. Also it seems that foreign policy analysts grow on trees these days, still you might find some good ones here as well [53] --Mor2 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Silver seren. As to your comments on my remarks, which synthesize two sources, read your blogging opinions preceding my edit here. It's called the pot calling the kettle black.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamas misinformation"

If we will have a section on Hamas misinformation, it should contain just that. Currently, it contains allegations against pro-Palestinian activists and BBC News, and neither are run by Hamas. Either we change the section name, or we move that material out of the section.VR talk 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What section should it be moved to? A new section? Ankh.Morpork 13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian misinformation? --Mor2 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vice has a point. There are the allegations from the one tweet that was of a Syrian person, that information should remain because it was about Hamas directly. But then the last sentence of that paragraph is discussing this other co-opting of photos by some vague pro-Palestinian activists. Even worse, the sentence after that is discussing footage from BBC. Why is that even in the section? Stuff that isn't about Hamas shouldn't be in the section and should be split into some extra "Other allegations" section or something. SilverserenC 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the best option is to rename the section "Coverage of Gaza". BBC News isn't a Palestinian source.VR talk 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of both Gaza and Israel is discussed in the "Social media and Internet" section. This section dealing only with allegations of misinformation made by various Palestinian groups. --Mor2 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think we should expand the ambit of the "Social media and Internet" section to include general media coverage that is not Hamas related. Ankh.Morpork 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have content that is not hamas/palestinian related? I noticed you started a new section, called "Media misrepresentation" but both entries there are also hamas/palestinian related. (Personally, I don't really care about this, but if someone want he can hunt the sources for those [54]) --Mor2 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to provide an amicable solution. If you prefer the original format, feel free to restore it. Ankh.Morpork 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a section on media coverage is relevant, it could include the use of social media, as well as (alleged) misinformation (e.g. the IDF has a propaganda video on Hamas misinformation - F16 shot down, gunboat hit, etc). I think we should be careful about implying this is deliberate misinformation (e.g. a heading of "Hamas misinformation" seems POV to me), since a warzone is necessarily chaotic, and it's often unclear - especially on the Palestinian side - who is the source and if it is representing the Hamas government. Ketil (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability". Amnesty International. 2009-01-19. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
  2. ^ "Human Rights Council Special Session on the Occupied Palestinian Territories" July 6, 2006; Human Rights Watch considers Gaza still occupied.
  3. ^ Levs, Josh (2009-01-06). "Is Gaza 'occupied' territory?". CNN. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
  4. ^ http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6461
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Gaza_War&oldid=523880885"