![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Okay I added the section but it could use some refinement. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I added this and was removed someone else please put it back in. I'm still blocked. Obvious JIDF in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The lines about 2005 are back but they are unsourced. The subsequent paragraphs are sourced by editorials or primarily based on the overreaching premise of a couple editorials. The reader does not need a brick of unruly text that cobbles together sources and personal opinion to understand that the conflict is complicated. The reader certainly does not need to be reasoned with. Write the article based on the weight given in RS and not your opinion. This is ridiculous. Cptnono ( talk) 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article crucially miss what the Israeli operation was about (alongside stopping the rockets) - that's Hamas attack tunnels that were dug beneath Israeli Kibbutzim in order to the kidnap and kill civilians there (3 motorcycles were found inside one tunnel for that purpose). Likewise the title on the tunnel photo "used by Hamas to carry out rocket and cross-border attacks on Israeli soldiers" is incorrect, it aimed against civilians. 5.28.159.18 ( talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: Your here. It is hardly a secret that Hamas' main condition for a ceasefire was ending the blockade. This can be confirmed by hundreds of sources. Even in the source cited, apart for a couple, all of them refer to the blockade and Gaza's economy. And you can't just count them, they all have different weights. The main thrust was to end the blockade.
More importantly, you need to read again WP:SS and WP:LEAD. The lead is the place for a summary, not for including all caveats. All sentences in the lead need not be footnoted. The summary "mostly centered on ending the blockade" for the truce is accurate.
I cannot revert this edit based on ARBPIA sanctions, but it would be good if you reverted it, and discussed it first instead of removing it. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have sources that say Turkey supports Hamas financially and publically, so I think it should be added to the infobox.
@ WarKosign: Regarding this . What does this have to do with the section on "Warnings by Israel"? Neither the quote nor the source talks about any warnings. There are many other problems with the quote. Why is the opinion of one man important? You can find hundreds on either side who support or oppose Israel's tactics. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
a pregnant women killed by Guided bomb it's not a military damage the 80% of causalities killed by Israel are civilians
The civilians causalities should be apart from combat causalities. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 21:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The Insurgents in Syria used civilian clothes too... -- Pototo1 ( talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead is an embarassment and the ongoing battleground for everyone on all sides to get as much of the "relevant background", as they see it, to the conflict as possible into the lead. I propose that there should be a clear starting point, and some consensual criteria on what to include. Otherwise, it will continue to spiral out of control. Kingsindian ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Bukyrrocro has for some reason changed the first paragraph of the lead completely with no discussion at all of his mysterious ways. I cannot revert it due to 1RR. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
An additional goal of the operation was to destroy the tunnels, see [8]. It should be added to the beginning. -- 192.114.88.210 ( talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Noon: would you mind explaining that is the the source for "ensuing rocket strikes on Israeli cities by Gazan militias" that you restored in your ? Even if someone claimed that IDF action 'ensued' rocket attacks, how could this be a 'stated goal' ? I believe this statement is baseless nonsense, unless someone can provide a RS that says otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(I started this sections for specific reason related to PCHR which is unrelated to the question raised above. Please do not alter my text) "The PCHR says anyone who is not effectively participating in a military operation is a civilian, including a Hamas fighter who is killed at home while taking a break." Now as this definition of civilains does not match the standard definition of civilians this has to be specified in the article. The numbers of civilians as presented by PCHR includes civilians and militants who at the time of their death did not actively participated in the battle. [9]-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556773,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-gaza-dispute-over-civilian-vs-combatant-deaths/2014/08/08/b84fd734-1f28-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html @ Tritomex:
@ WarKosign and Tritomex: This is a somewhat misleading summary of PCHR's methodology. First of all, one should not focus on PCHR's methodology exclusively. As the Casualties of the Gaza War and the Ynet article makes clear, once all the figures and backgrounds are cross-checked, the figures from various orgs, including B'Tselem, who only has a very incomplete figure so far, would be roughly the same. And it would be very different from the IDF/ITIC figures. Till then, if you wish, describe the methodology in some neutral way, if you wish (it is too early to do so, in my opinion, but do it if you really want), but don't imply in any way that PCHR's figures are suspect, as compared to others. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
For example many of 66 Israeli soldiers killed were not actively engaged in military operation but died as a result of cross-border military action from Hamas.
@ Kingsindian and Tritomex: How about "Current reports are incomplete and not final. Number of civilian and military casualties vary considerably between different sources. Reasons for differences include mistakes, intentional data manipulations and different methodologies. [1] [2]" in the "Casualties and losses" section, before "Palestinian" ? - WarKosign ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Another issue is that there is no such thing as "Gaza health ministry" as Gaza is not a country and does not have a health ministry
@ Nishidani, Tritomex, and Knightmare72589: I added the paragraph suggested by Nishidani. (Bare url refs, will fix tomorrow). I also cleaned the section that follows the casualties table from repetition of information already present in the table, moved the civilian percentage there as well. I think there is room for comparing methodologies, but criticizing only one of them is clearly POV. - WarKosign ( talk) 21:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"For its part, Israel has said it uses its own intelligence reports to determine who among the dead belonged to Hamas or other militant groups."
"In one set of 300 names classified as civilians "at least 50 percent were ... members of the Hamas terrorist movement," he said, declining to give further details on exactly who made that classification."
U.N. researchers start out with figures from the ministry, the media and other sources, but then cross-check them with the help of Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups."
@ Tritomex: I urge you to reconsider your stance. Everyone except you who has participated (me, Nishidani and WarKosign) agrees that just putting PHCR methodology and no others in the infobox is POV. Perhaps, if you reflect, you may see my point. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The allegation will be presented Tritomex, but its not appropriate for the infobox. The allegation is more appropriate to be presented, with the source, in the casualties and losses section. EkoGraf ( talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
spelling error, in section "Financial impact"
"genertor" should be "generator"
Pdragy ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Done; thanks for letting us know about the error. :)
-sche (
talk)
22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Headlines like "Use of civilian structures for military purposes" and "Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes" seems to give any impression as if this article is official blog of IDF. -- 39.55.108.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the one title to include "Allegations", but I'm a bit perplexed on the "urging/forcing" title, since it seems silly (and I'm not sure why?) to include "allegations" there, because the whole title there should be changed, but I'm not sure how to make that more neutral, except for "allegations" again. Or, we could just take that part out, and not have a section/title there at all. And I think "human shields" is ok, loaded or not, because it's actually neutral in its meaning. Maybe something for that title: "Questions raised about human shields" Hires an editor ( talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I have already responded as to why I don't think this is a good organization. In a nutshell, the "links" are not a sufficient way to discuss the context. And if the context is discussed in every section, it will lead to lots of duplication. This is why I have put the meat of it in one section. Kingsindian ( talk) 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ I.am.a.qwerty: I have put a POV tag on this section. There should not be a section on "UN impartiality" which is a litany of crimes, real and alleged, against the UN. If such a section is there, it should be called "Role of the UN" with pro- and con- presented. None of the criticisms made here are new, and all of them have been responded to, by various people. That needs to be presented. Finally, I have removed the totally silly statement (from FrontPageMag) about UNRWA members being "Hamas supporters" based on the fact that they voted for Hamas in the election. The source concludes that "The UNRWA in Gaza is an arm of Hamas". Members of humanitarian organizations are not required to not vote or not hold political opinions. Kingsindian ( talk) 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
While Israeli officials have never admitted intentionally targeting the United Nations, many Israelis contest the notion that the United Nations is a benign and impartial actor in Gaza, devoted only to ensuring the well-being of refugees in the territory. The Israeli government and the U.N. refugee organization for Palestinians — the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) — regularly trade accusations: U.N. officials have criticized Israel’s economic blockade of the territory, while Israeli officials have routinely accused UNRWA of parroting Hamas’s arguments and even being complicit in some of its activities.
@ WarKosign: Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff. Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is a 1RR rule, one revert every 24 hours. Reverting does not have to mean using the "undo" button. If you remove all of the edit of some other user, you are reverting them.
You have already effectively reverted 4 times, here, here, here and here. I am not saying all the edits are wrong. The rule is there to have some discussion on the talk page, not continuous edit warring. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Please use the talk page to discuss your edits instead of continuous edit warring. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@
WarKosign: At 16:29, 7 August 2014 WarKosign (talk | contribs) . . (137,111 bytes) (-552) . . (Undid revision 620249311 by Erictheenquirer without any discussion in Talk, supplying as justification "POV" and "the referenced source does not contain any of the claims". I strongly object that WarKosign has once again made a complete deletion of an edit without any discussion whatsoever on the Talk page and without even the courtesy of notification. Regarding "POV" I want WarKosign to point out exactly where I inserted a point-of-view in the text that he/she reverted. I also totally dispute his/her claim that the reference that I supplied did not support the claims made. If not forthcoming I intend to revert the deletions.
Erictheenquirer (
talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Erictheenquirer (
talk)
09:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Erictheenquirer: You made big changes to the first paragraph of the article without any discussion on the talk page. As I wrote, these changes clearly represented a point of view - they show how Israel's cruel actions were the cause for reasonable and just reaction by the poor and oppressed Hamas. In addition, the source you provided did not contain support for any of the claims - all it contained was a list of links. You might as well have provided google.com as a source - sure, if you look hard enough you may be able to find the relevant quotes that backs your claim. If you think that the paragraphs needs to be changed, please discuss it here before you go on and modify it again. -
WarKosign (
talk)
15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
{{re|WarKosign} the statements were are all sourced to citations already present in the article, as Erictheenquirer has outlined. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
As WarKosign, Kingsindian and other editors have observed, this page is a mess. It lack's structure and as a result has duplications and reads disjointedly. As Kingsindian and ANOther (?) pointed out, it deserves a background section, but one that does not go back to the Bar Kokhba revolt, but starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire. So as to get this rolling, I will therefore start a new Talk-topic titled "Page Restructuring". Erictheenquirer ( talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have collapsed this to refer to an earlier discussion on the background
|
---|
(Since people keep removing a whole lot of stuff from the background, I am reposting this from the archives) Kingsindian ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 ( talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace. This also, in the background, is POV pushing:
('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani ( talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Completeness of "Background": Quote: "The operation follows a chain of events that began with the abduction of three Israeli teenagers Naftali Fraenkel (16), Gilad Shaer (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) in the West Bank in June 2014, for which Israel blamed Hamas." Why start there? Why not step back slightly and look at the full picture since the start of the recent tension, because that start was NOT as the article currently states. Here is the sequence as I have gleaned it: 2013: No Israeli fatalities from Gaza during 2013 January 2014: Shabak – 11 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) February 2014: Shabak – 7 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) March 2014: Shabak – 22 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) April 2014: Shabak – 10 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) May 2014: Shabak – 4 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) During early/mid May 2014 twelve Palestinians were wounded by the IDF in a series of events http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10331 Then, on May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed by the IDF and eight civilians wounded during commemorations of Nakba day. On May 20 video evidence became available showing that the youths were posing no threat at the time - http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/palestine-teenagerskilled.html. The USA called for an inquiry. The IDF reported that “live fire” had not been used, a claim refuted by B’Tselem. On May 22, as Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the UN) suggested on CNN that the boys may not be dead, the UN released a report of a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties over recent periods [11]. June 9: The body of one of the teens, Nadim Numara, was exhumed and an autopsy performed which found that a live bullet had killed the boy. “The willful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime” Human Rights Watch - http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/israel-killing-children-apparent-war-crime. A senior Palestinian official called the killings a "deliberate execution" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27488135 On June 12, three days after the official autopsy result, three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped in the West Bank. Is this pure coincidence? The rest of the saga DOES appear in this article. I believe the full lead-up needs to be laid out, and not one of selective memory. Any objection to this being done? Erictheenquirer ( talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed section added to "Background" Erictheenquirer ( talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My head spins just trying to read this Background section. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) (removed the above to isolate the thinking behind the current background) Kingsindian ( talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
<------- (Merging a section from below)
This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.
The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. [3] Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 [4] [5] the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, [6] by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. [7] On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, [8] and the same pattern continued through June. [9] Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. [10] Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. [11] [12] No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming [13] Hamas leaders denied any involvement. [14] and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. [15] Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. [16] Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, [17] . [18] [19] among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. [20] [21] Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, [10] [22] [23] and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership. [24]
Collapsing references
|
---|
|
The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: A general comment. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the background should more or less start with 2012 ceasefire, with some major things from earlier periods included from before. Specific comments: 1. I am fine with including the Guardian view that the roots are in the 2005 withdrawal 2. I am skeptical of including all the ceasefire violations etc. going back to 2008 in detail. One can mention that there were two prior ceasefire agreements in 2008 and 2012, but to have sections for them seems not correct to me. 3. The 2008 and 2012 wars/massacres already have articles for them. And they have their own summary of the ceasefire violations prior to the wars. The sections for the 2008 and 2012 wars are quite far from the sections in the articles for those wars/massacres and will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV. 4. I do not see any references for the 2008 violation and for the 2012 violations, there is only one reference to Israeli violations. Again, this will be seen as violating NPOV. 5. The last two sections are more or less ok. However the statement by Moti Almoz was uttered on July 8, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. It belongs in the last section. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
@ Thetwentieth: It is easy to provide sources. Here are two, in the New York Review of Books even before the disengagement here(he again quotes Weissglass, among others) and London Review of Books by Sara Roy, the leading academic specialist on the economy of Gaza here. Here is a quote from the latter: "Whatever else it claims to be, the Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument for Israel’s continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical integration of that land into Israel". Perhaps you can start with some of your own sources now. The fact that the 2005 disengagement was a major issue in Israeli elections in 2005 is not important. There is a very broad consensus in Israel for continuation of occupation and keeping settlements. This is why it has endured for 47 years. You again mistake theatrics for the reality. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thetwentieth: Recall the issue we are discussing. It is the Guardian editorial. The paragraph makes the following 3 points:
Can you tell me what exactly is it that you dispute? Kingsindian ( talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I found this article very good on the background. This is by a mainstream political scientist in the "realist" school. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Text inappropriate to "Background" - incorporate in main section:
I am afraid that the following might sound a bit bitter, but my " faith in humanity" has been shaken. None of the people who are complaining about "Guardian editorial", we should stick to facts (even though nobody disputes the facts, excepth User:Thetwentieth, who I have tried to argue with) etc. are complaining about the irrelevant passage from some person's blog (the fact that it is on a newspaper's site does not make any difference) making tangential (at best) statements. One person, User:TheTimesAreAChanging, even helpfully elaborated from the blog post. Am I to believe that this is a serious discussion? I have already listed the 3 points made in the Guardian editorial above. The statements made by Johnson do not even talk about the points made but someone has mindlessly put in a "contrary view" with no regard for weight or logic. The first statement is very dubious, it regurgitates Israel's view "blockade was necessary because of rocket fire" without even looking at the chronology, easily available in the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip article (the financial sanctions were first put after 2006 elections, blockade after 2007 Hamas coup). The second statement is from 2014, which has nothing whatsoever to do with 2005 or 2007. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Notifying User:Erictheenquirer and User:Nishidani one of whom added the Guardian section (I forgot who). Kingsindian ( talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Since I don't have the energy to fight this more, I have tried to write a "just the facts" section diff. I have not added references, but can easily do so if anyone wants. Kingsindian ( talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The editor tries to make a connection between the background and this section by writing "An additional factor in the conflict is the use of tunnels by Hamas and other Gazan militias. Various groups in Gaza have built a number of tunnels reaching into Egyptian and Israeli territory," a sentence which is referred to no WP:RS. Which of the sources has mentioned the tunnels as factor for igniting the flames war? If there is no source claiming that, which I think is the case here, the editor's WP:OR, at best, move the paragraph to another section. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ user:Kingsindian I moved this section out of the background, but still I can't find any motivations for this section to stay in the article. In fact I can't find any relationships between this section and the article. Am I right? Mhhossein ( talk) 04:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Shrike and Mhhossein: What is the relevance of the use of child labour in tunnels? Are we going to include Hamas attitudes to women and alcohol next? This article is not about Hamas domestic policies, but the Israel-Gaza conflict. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ -sche, Mhhossein, Shrike, and I.am.a.qwerty:
I realise there has been discussion on this but it seemed to go nowhere, and we are left with a crippled Page concerning a mega-2014 event. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This "Background" section remains totally unsatisfactory. Remembering that it is meant to be a Background to "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict", its major and critical failing is that 50% of the content refers to 2014. This demands major revision. In fact the entire Page is clumsy because the structure is woefully poor. There are dozens of repetitions, backtrackings, and incomplete timeline sequences. In fact it reads like a clumsy attempt to be a Page titled "Operation Preferred Edge". This is yet another reason to address the whole structure and to edit this mess into shape. Expect a "structure" proposal soon. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 11:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::I preferred the older version. The first para here is an absolute copyediting mess, which should read:
(above comment by Nishidani)In 2005 Ariel Sharon implemented a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. [1] The following year, Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections. The outcome disconcerted Israel, the United States and the European Quartet, and they demanded Hamas accept all previous agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and when Hamas refused, cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. In mid-2006 an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border raid. The United States, in response to Fatah moves in October 2006 to form a unity government with Hamas, tried to undo the elections by arming Fatah to overthrow Hamas in Gaza: Hamas mounted a counter coup and wrested complete power. [2] Israel then defined the area as an "hostile territory" forming no part of a sovereign state and put Gaza under a comprehensive economic and political blockade, [3] which also denied access to a third of its arable land and 85% of its fishing areas, a move deemed by the UN to constitute collective punishment in violation of international law. [4]
@ Nishidani: Even though the above is completely true, good luck getting this stable in the background. The Guardian editorial addition was mercilessly attacked. See the background section and my discussions there. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Erictheenquirer: When I said it was not moved back because of too much disruption, I did not mean the name of the page is destined to be 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict permanently. As you cane see from the top of the talk page, some administrator put a moratorium on moving the page for three months. It will be evaluated again after that time. Almost all of the page is about Operation Protective Edge, not 2014 in general. I believe (this is of course my opinion), that after the three months it will most probably be moved to some version of the original title, perhaps replacing the official IDF name with something like 2014 Gaza war, like the Gaza War (2008-09) article. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
All strength and may the field remain level Erictheenquirer ( talk) 15:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@ -sche: Regarding your concerns about WP:SYNTH in the section, the stuff all comes from the 972mag article cited in the section, which bases itself on two articles. One is this about the opposition to the unity govt, and the other is in Hebrew by Alex Fishman about the strike being a "premeditated escalation" here. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section regarding attack on journalist someone changed the name of Foreign Press Association into The Foreign Press Association of Israel, an organization which does not exist. The Foreign Press Association [ [15]] is a professional journalist association established in 1918. It has branch in Israel called Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestinian Territories.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is under strict 1RR . As Wikipedia envision sanctions regarding violations of 1rr policy, respecting this rule is an imperative for all of us.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Okay I added the section but it could use some refinement. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I added this and was removed someone else please put it back in. I'm still blocked. Obvious JIDF in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The lines about 2005 are back but they are unsourced. The subsequent paragraphs are sourced by editorials or primarily based on the overreaching premise of a couple editorials. The reader does not need a brick of unruly text that cobbles together sources and personal opinion to understand that the conflict is complicated. The reader certainly does not need to be reasoned with. Write the article based on the weight given in RS and not your opinion. This is ridiculous. Cptnono ( talk) 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article crucially miss what the Israeli operation was about (alongside stopping the rockets) - that's Hamas attack tunnels that were dug beneath Israeli Kibbutzim in order to the kidnap and kill civilians there (3 motorcycles were found inside one tunnel for that purpose). Likewise the title on the tunnel photo "used by Hamas to carry out rocket and cross-border attacks on Israeli soldiers" is incorrect, it aimed against civilians. 5.28.159.18 ( talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: Your here. It is hardly a secret that Hamas' main condition for a ceasefire was ending the blockade. This can be confirmed by hundreds of sources. Even in the source cited, apart for a couple, all of them refer to the blockade and Gaza's economy. And you can't just count them, they all have different weights. The main thrust was to end the blockade.
More importantly, you need to read again WP:SS and WP:LEAD. The lead is the place for a summary, not for including all caveats. All sentences in the lead need not be footnoted. The summary "mostly centered on ending the blockade" for the truce is accurate.
I cannot revert this edit based on ARBPIA sanctions, but it would be good if you reverted it, and discussed it first instead of removing it. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have sources that say Turkey supports Hamas financially and publically, so I think it should be added to the infobox.
@ WarKosign: Regarding this . What does this have to do with the section on "Warnings by Israel"? Neither the quote nor the source talks about any warnings. There are many other problems with the quote. Why is the opinion of one man important? You can find hundreds on either side who support or oppose Israel's tactics. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
a pregnant women killed by Guided bomb it's not a military damage the 80% of causalities killed by Israel are civilians
The civilians causalities should be apart from combat causalities. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 21:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The Insurgents in Syria used civilian clothes too... -- Pototo1 ( talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead is an embarassment and the ongoing battleground for everyone on all sides to get as much of the "relevant background", as they see it, to the conflict as possible into the lead. I propose that there should be a clear starting point, and some consensual criteria on what to include. Otherwise, it will continue to spiral out of control. Kingsindian ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Bukyrrocro has for some reason changed the first paragraph of the lead completely with no discussion at all of his mysterious ways. I cannot revert it due to 1RR. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
An additional goal of the operation was to destroy the tunnels, see [8]. It should be added to the beginning. -- 192.114.88.210 ( talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Noon: would you mind explaining that is the the source for "ensuing rocket strikes on Israeli cities by Gazan militias" that you restored in your ? Even if someone claimed that IDF action 'ensued' rocket attacks, how could this be a 'stated goal' ? I believe this statement is baseless nonsense, unless someone can provide a RS that says otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(I started this sections for specific reason related to PCHR which is unrelated to the question raised above. Please do not alter my text) "The PCHR says anyone who is not effectively participating in a military operation is a civilian, including a Hamas fighter who is killed at home while taking a break." Now as this definition of civilains does not match the standard definition of civilians this has to be specified in the article. The numbers of civilians as presented by PCHR includes civilians and militants who at the time of their death did not actively participated in the battle. [9]-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556773,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-gaza-dispute-over-civilian-vs-combatant-deaths/2014/08/08/b84fd734-1f28-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html @ Tritomex:
@ WarKosign and Tritomex: This is a somewhat misleading summary of PCHR's methodology. First of all, one should not focus on PCHR's methodology exclusively. As the Casualties of the Gaza War and the Ynet article makes clear, once all the figures and backgrounds are cross-checked, the figures from various orgs, including B'Tselem, who only has a very incomplete figure so far, would be roughly the same. And it would be very different from the IDF/ITIC figures. Till then, if you wish, describe the methodology in some neutral way, if you wish (it is too early to do so, in my opinion, but do it if you really want), but don't imply in any way that PCHR's figures are suspect, as compared to others. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
For example many of 66 Israeli soldiers killed were not actively engaged in military operation but died as a result of cross-border military action from Hamas.
@ Kingsindian and Tritomex: How about "Current reports are incomplete and not final. Number of civilian and military casualties vary considerably between different sources. Reasons for differences include mistakes, intentional data manipulations and different methodologies. [1] [2]" in the "Casualties and losses" section, before "Palestinian" ? - WarKosign ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Another issue is that there is no such thing as "Gaza health ministry" as Gaza is not a country and does not have a health ministry
@ Nishidani, Tritomex, and Knightmare72589: I added the paragraph suggested by Nishidani. (Bare url refs, will fix tomorrow). I also cleaned the section that follows the casualties table from repetition of information already present in the table, moved the civilian percentage there as well. I think there is room for comparing methodologies, but criticizing only one of them is clearly POV. - WarKosign ( talk) 21:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"For its part, Israel has said it uses its own intelligence reports to determine who among the dead belonged to Hamas or other militant groups."
"In one set of 300 names classified as civilians "at least 50 percent were ... members of the Hamas terrorist movement," he said, declining to give further details on exactly who made that classification."
U.N. researchers start out with figures from the ministry, the media and other sources, but then cross-check them with the help of Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups."
@ Tritomex: I urge you to reconsider your stance. Everyone except you who has participated (me, Nishidani and WarKosign) agrees that just putting PHCR methodology and no others in the infobox is POV. Perhaps, if you reflect, you may see my point. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The allegation will be presented Tritomex, but its not appropriate for the infobox. The allegation is more appropriate to be presented, with the source, in the casualties and losses section. EkoGraf ( talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
spelling error, in section "Financial impact"
"genertor" should be "generator"
Pdragy ( talk) 22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Done; thanks for letting us know about the error. :)
-sche (
talk)
22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Headlines like "Use of civilian structures for military purposes" and "Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes" seems to give any impression as if this article is official blog of IDF. -- 39.55.108.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the one title to include "Allegations", but I'm a bit perplexed on the "urging/forcing" title, since it seems silly (and I'm not sure why?) to include "allegations" there, because the whole title there should be changed, but I'm not sure how to make that more neutral, except for "allegations" again. Or, we could just take that part out, and not have a section/title there at all. And I think "human shields" is ok, loaded or not, because it's actually neutral in its meaning. Maybe something for that title: "Questions raised about human shields" Hires an editor ( talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I have already responded as to why I don't think this is a good organization. In a nutshell, the "links" are not a sufficient way to discuss the context. And if the context is discussed in every section, it will lead to lots of duplication. This is why I have put the meat of it in one section. Kingsindian ( talk) 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ I.am.a.qwerty: I have put a POV tag on this section. There should not be a section on "UN impartiality" which is a litany of crimes, real and alleged, against the UN. If such a section is there, it should be called "Role of the UN" with pro- and con- presented. None of the criticisms made here are new, and all of them have been responded to, by various people. That needs to be presented. Finally, I have removed the totally silly statement (from FrontPageMag) about UNRWA members being "Hamas supporters" based on the fact that they voted for Hamas in the election. The source concludes that "The UNRWA in Gaza is an arm of Hamas". Members of humanitarian organizations are not required to not vote or not hold political opinions. Kingsindian ( talk) 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
While Israeli officials have never admitted intentionally targeting the United Nations, many Israelis contest the notion that the United Nations is a benign and impartial actor in Gaza, devoted only to ensuring the well-being of refugees in the territory. The Israeli government and the U.N. refugee organization for Palestinians — the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) — regularly trade accusations: U.N. officials have criticized Israel’s economic blockade of the territory, while Israeli officials have routinely accused UNRWA of parroting Hamas’s arguments and even being complicit in some of its activities.
@ WarKosign: Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff. Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is a 1RR rule, one revert every 24 hours. Reverting does not have to mean using the "undo" button. If you remove all of the edit of some other user, you are reverting them.
You have already effectively reverted 4 times, here, here, here and here. I am not saying all the edits are wrong. The rule is there to have some discussion on the talk page, not continuous edit warring. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Please use the talk page to discuss your edits instead of continuous edit warring. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@
WarKosign: At 16:29, 7 August 2014 WarKosign (talk | contribs) . . (137,111 bytes) (-552) . . (Undid revision 620249311 by Erictheenquirer without any discussion in Talk, supplying as justification "POV" and "the referenced source does not contain any of the claims". I strongly object that WarKosign has once again made a complete deletion of an edit without any discussion whatsoever on the Talk page and without even the courtesy of notification. Regarding "POV" I want WarKosign to point out exactly where I inserted a point-of-view in the text that he/she reverted. I also totally dispute his/her claim that the reference that I supplied did not support the claims made. If not forthcoming I intend to revert the deletions.
Erictheenquirer (
talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Erictheenquirer (
talk)
09:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Erictheenquirer: You made big changes to the first paragraph of the article without any discussion on the talk page. As I wrote, these changes clearly represented a point of view - they show how Israel's cruel actions were the cause for reasonable and just reaction by the poor and oppressed Hamas. In addition, the source you provided did not contain support for any of the claims - all it contained was a list of links. You might as well have provided google.com as a source - sure, if you look hard enough you may be able to find the relevant quotes that backs your claim. If you think that the paragraphs needs to be changed, please discuss it here before you go on and modify it again. -
WarKosign (
talk)
15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
{{re|WarKosign} the statements were are all sourced to citations already present in the article, as Erictheenquirer has outlined. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
As WarKosign, Kingsindian and other editors have observed, this page is a mess. It lack's structure and as a result has duplications and reads disjointedly. As Kingsindian and ANOther (?) pointed out, it deserves a background section, but one that does not go back to the Bar Kokhba revolt, but starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire. So as to get this rolling, I will therefore start a new Talk-topic titled "Page Restructuring". Erictheenquirer ( talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have collapsed this to refer to an earlier discussion on the background
|
---|
(Since people keep removing a whole lot of stuff from the background, I am reposting this from the archives) Kingsindian ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 ( talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace. This also, in the background, is POV pushing:
('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani ( talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Completeness of "Background": Quote: "The operation follows a chain of events that began with the abduction of three Israeli teenagers Naftali Fraenkel (16), Gilad Shaer (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) in the West Bank in June 2014, for which Israel blamed Hamas." Why start there? Why not step back slightly and look at the full picture since the start of the recent tension, because that start was NOT as the article currently states. Here is the sequence as I have gleaned it: 2013: No Israeli fatalities from Gaza during 2013 January 2014: Shabak – 11 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) February 2014: Shabak – 7 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) March 2014: Shabak – 22 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) April 2014: Shabak – 10 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) May 2014: Shabak – 4 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) During early/mid May 2014 twelve Palestinians were wounded by the IDF in a series of events http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10331 Then, on May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed by the IDF and eight civilians wounded during commemorations of Nakba day. On May 20 video evidence became available showing that the youths were posing no threat at the time - http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/palestine-teenagerskilled.html. The USA called for an inquiry. The IDF reported that “live fire” had not been used, a claim refuted by B’Tselem. On May 22, as Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the UN) suggested on CNN that the boys may not be dead, the UN released a report of a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties over recent periods [11]. June 9: The body of one of the teens, Nadim Numara, was exhumed and an autopsy performed which found that a live bullet had killed the boy. “The willful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime” Human Rights Watch - http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/israel-killing-children-apparent-war-crime. A senior Palestinian official called the killings a "deliberate execution" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27488135 On June 12, three days after the official autopsy result, three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped in the West Bank. Is this pure coincidence? The rest of the saga DOES appear in this article. I believe the full lead-up needs to be laid out, and not one of selective memory. Any objection to this being done? Erictheenquirer ( talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed section added to "Background" Erictheenquirer ( talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My head spins just trying to read this Background section. Kingsindian ( talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) (removed the above to isolate the thinking behind the current background) Kingsindian ( talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
<------- (Merging a section from below)
This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.
The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. [3] Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 [4] [5] the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, [6] by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. [7] On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, [8] and the same pattern continued through June. [9] Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. [10] Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. [11] [12] No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming [13] Hamas leaders denied any involvement. [14] and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. [15] Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. [16] Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, [17] . [18] [19] among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. [20] [21] Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, [10] [22] [23] and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership. [24]
Collapsing references
|
---|
|
The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: A general comment. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the background should more or less start with 2012 ceasefire, with some major things from earlier periods included from before. Specific comments: 1. I am fine with including the Guardian view that the roots are in the 2005 withdrawal 2. I am skeptical of including all the ceasefire violations etc. going back to 2008 in detail. One can mention that there were two prior ceasefire agreements in 2008 and 2012, but to have sections for them seems not correct to me. 3. The 2008 and 2012 wars/massacres already have articles for them. And they have their own summary of the ceasefire violations prior to the wars. The sections for the 2008 and 2012 wars are quite far from the sections in the articles for those wars/massacres and will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV. 4. I do not see any references for the 2008 violation and for the 2012 violations, there is only one reference to Israeli violations. Again, this will be seen as violating NPOV. 5. The last two sections are more or less ok. However the statement by Moti Almoz was uttered on July 8, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. It belongs in the last section. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
@ Thetwentieth: It is easy to provide sources. Here are two, in the New York Review of Books even before the disengagement here(he again quotes Weissglass, among others) and London Review of Books by Sara Roy, the leading academic specialist on the economy of Gaza here. Here is a quote from the latter: "Whatever else it claims to be, the Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument for Israel’s continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical integration of that land into Israel". Perhaps you can start with some of your own sources now. The fact that the 2005 disengagement was a major issue in Israeli elections in 2005 is not important. There is a very broad consensus in Israel for continuation of occupation and keeping settlements. This is why it has endured for 47 years. You again mistake theatrics for the reality. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thetwentieth: Recall the issue we are discussing. It is the Guardian editorial. The paragraph makes the following 3 points:
Can you tell me what exactly is it that you dispute? Kingsindian ( talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I found this article very good on the background. This is by a mainstream political scientist in the "realist" school. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Text inappropriate to "Background" - incorporate in main section:
I am afraid that the following might sound a bit bitter, but my " faith in humanity" has been shaken. None of the people who are complaining about "Guardian editorial", we should stick to facts (even though nobody disputes the facts, excepth User:Thetwentieth, who I have tried to argue with) etc. are complaining about the irrelevant passage from some person's blog (the fact that it is on a newspaper's site does not make any difference) making tangential (at best) statements. One person, User:TheTimesAreAChanging, even helpfully elaborated from the blog post. Am I to believe that this is a serious discussion? I have already listed the 3 points made in the Guardian editorial above. The statements made by Johnson do not even talk about the points made but someone has mindlessly put in a "contrary view" with no regard for weight or logic. The first statement is very dubious, it regurgitates Israel's view "blockade was necessary because of rocket fire" without even looking at the chronology, easily available in the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip article (the financial sanctions were first put after 2006 elections, blockade after 2007 Hamas coup). The second statement is from 2014, which has nothing whatsoever to do with 2005 or 2007. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Notifying User:Erictheenquirer and User:Nishidani one of whom added the Guardian section (I forgot who). Kingsindian ( talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Since I don't have the energy to fight this more, I have tried to write a "just the facts" section diff. I have not added references, but can easily do so if anyone wants. Kingsindian ( talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The editor tries to make a connection between the background and this section by writing "An additional factor in the conflict is the use of tunnels by Hamas and other Gazan militias. Various groups in Gaza have built a number of tunnels reaching into Egyptian and Israeli territory," a sentence which is referred to no WP:RS. Which of the sources has mentioned the tunnels as factor for igniting the flames war? If there is no source claiming that, which I think is the case here, the editor's WP:OR, at best, move the paragraph to another section. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ user:Kingsindian I moved this section out of the background, but still I can't find any motivations for this section to stay in the article. In fact I can't find any relationships between this section and the article. Am I right? Mhhossein ( talk) 04:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Shrike and Mhhossein: What is the relevance of the use of child labour in tunnels? Are we going to include Hamas attitudes to women and alcohol next? This article is not about Hamas domestic policies, but the Israel-Gaza conflict. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ -sche, Mhhossein, Shrike, and I.am.a.qwerty:
I realise there has been discussion on this but it seemed to go nowhere, and we are left with a crippled Page concerning a mega-2014 event. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This "Background" section remains totally unsatisfactory. Remembering that it is meant to be a Background to "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict", its major and critical failing is that 50% of the content refers to 2014. This demands major revision. In fact the entire Page is clumsy because the structure is woefully poor. There are dozens of repetitions, backtrackings, and incomplete timeline sequences. In fact it reads like a clumsy attempt to be a Page titled "Operation Preferred Edge". This is yet another reason to address the whole structure and to edit this mess into shape. Expect a "structure" proposal soon. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 11:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::I preferred the older version. The first para here is an absolute copyediting mess, which should read:
(above comment by Nishidani)In 2005 Ariel Sharon implemented a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. [1] The following year, Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections. The outcome disconcerted Israel, the United States and the European Quartet, and they demanded Hamas accept all previous agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and when Hamas refused, cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. In mid-2006 an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border raid. The United States, in response to Fatah moves in October 2006 to form a unity government with Hamas, tried to undo the elections by arming Fatah to overthrow Hamas in Gaza: Hamas mounted a counter coup and wrested complete power. [2] Israel then defined the area as an "hostile territory" forming no part of a sovereign state and put Gaza under a comprehensive economic and political blockade, [3] which also denied access to a third of its arable land and 85% of its fishing areas, a move deemed by the UN to constitute collective punishment in violation of international law. [4]
@ Nishidani: Even though the above is completely true, good luck getting this stable in the background. The Guardian editorial addition was mercilessly attacked. See the background section and my discussions there. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Erictheenquirer: When I said it was not moved back because of too much disruption, I did not mean the name of the page is destined to be 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict permanently. As you cane see from the top of the talk page, some administrator put a moratorium on moving the page for three months. It will be evaluated again after that time. Almost all of the page is about Operation Protective Edge, not 2014 in general. I believe (this is of course my opinion), that after the three months it will most probably be moved to some version of the original title, perhaps replacing the official IDF name with something like 2014 Gaza war, like the Gaza War (2008-09) article. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
All strength and may the field remain level Erictheenquirer ( talk) 15:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@ -sche: Regarding your concerns about WP:SYNTH in the section, the stuff all comes from the 972mag article cited in the section, which bases itself on two articles. One is this about the opposition to the unity govt, and the other is in Hebrew by Alex Fishman about the strike being a "premeditated escalation" here. Kingsindian ( talk) 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section regarding attack on journalist someone changed the name of Foreign Press Association into The Foreign Press Association of Israel, an organization which does not exist. The Foreign Press Association [ [15]] is a professional journalist association established in 1918. It has branch in Israel called Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestinian Territories.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is under strict 1RR . As Wikipedia envision sanctions regarding violations of 1rr policy, respecting this rule is an imperative for all of us.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)