Talk:2012 Gaza War/Archive 1

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)
 * ✅ Added by LuK3 -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * I've made the change. Ryan Vesey 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

#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. Will add it soon. Derpian (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added information with source Derpian (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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 attacked many Israeli websites in response to the IDF offensive in Gaza and claims to have taken down at least 50 sites. Many of the websites were replaced with messages condemning the Israeli campaign and expressing support for the citizens of Gaza.

Capscap (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jprg1966  (talk)  07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Capscap (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"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)
 * I will research this. Can you give me a source to verify your claims? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  14:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a source (the Telegraph) and will add something about it. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * no, it's not, and we don't know what brought down this UAV either. Poliocretes (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * except that IAI(israeli aerospace industies) does use that UAV, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_UAV#IAI_Malat_.22BirdEye.22s_and_.22Mosquito.22

"IAI Malat has also introduced their own small UAV line, designated BirdEye, which includes the 5 kilogram (11 pound) BirdEye 500 and the 500 gram (1.1 pound) BirdEye 100. Sources also mention a Malat micro-UAV, the Mosquito" anyone can type without finding the facts for themselves, perhaps the UAV did get shot down, perhaps not, but dissmissing it cos you don't like the data is biased 188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:10, 21 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)

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)

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

Fighter Jet
There was no Israeli Fighter Jet lost. Please remove. 213.57.187.181 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was also wondering where this came from. This is incorrect information. 109.186.109.222 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)
 * That source isn't reliable at all. The bombing may have had an entirely different reason.VR talk  03:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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" ([http://www.elnafis.net/news/57/3204/%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A5%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B9_%D9%86%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%82_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3_%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82_%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%84_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A8_%D9%87%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_!! 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)
 * Agree, a change along these lines is well overdue. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done By . &#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 17:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.188.122.215.2 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * here - - "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)
 * Temporarily ✅, 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)
 * Thank you. If you need some more sources, here: - "Scharf was the mother of three children, and was pregnant with a fourth."  - "Scharf was also pregnant - she came to Israel in order to give birth, but arrived early to attend the Holtzberg memorial."  - "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."  - "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."  - "Mrs. Sharf was pregnant when she was killed." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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.

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)
 * It looks like Australia did condemn the attacks and express support of Israel here Capscap (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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." 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)

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

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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. ). 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * ,, 71.35.139.215 (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Dead link? the link in the reference that comes just after the text you quoted, work.--Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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? etc BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. And it should be mentioned that the rocket hit a Palestinian village in Gush Etzion area, see . 213.57.187.181 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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 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)

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

The material was inappropriately deleted from the article 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There is if I think that this event is already covered by the next paragraph. --Mor2 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * Agreed. Anything they say should be removed or better sources found. CarolMooreDC 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Interior Minister comment in lede
User: Dlv999 inserted the comment of the Interior Minister regarding Gaza in the lede of the article. 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). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Would you mind explaining why you chose one minister's comment over the comments of other far more relevant ministers? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think it should go in the International reaction section, along with other minister comments.Dhawk790 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree its clear violation of WP:NPOV to put him in the lead.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think the comments belong in the article, but not in the lede.VR talk  05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand references to Quran (Surah 105:4) also don't belong in the lede. It would be UNDUE to put something like this in the lede.VR talk  13:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * I agree. There should be more pictures of the destruction in Gaza.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The current map is of strikes during the *last* Gaza conflict. Isn't that confusing? Ketil (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems fixed now. Ketil (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * Can you provide updates figures and sources for the Israeli casualties? ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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
 * November 17 - 16 injured between 0900 and 2100
 * November 18 - 4 injured in Ashkelon, 2 in Ashkelon , 1 in Ashkelon , 1 in Sha'ar Hanegev , 1 near Kiryat Arba and 15 in Ofakim


 * Shimon Ben-Hamu (23) of Tekoa was killed on Saturday night.


 * 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)
 * A November 19 Jerusalem post article reported that Magen David Adom treated "over 252" Israeli casualties. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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. Silver seren C 04:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.. Not sure if that includes artillery or naval fire. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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? Silver seren C 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Mahmoud Sadallah
I have moved the death of Mahmoud Sadallah to Operation_Pillar_of_Defense. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Proposed wording: "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have been caused by a misfired Gazan rocket, although Hamas maintains the cause was an Israeli airstrike." The rest of the details will be in the timeline, like they are for all other casualties.VR talk  18:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) 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)
 * 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) 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)
 * 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)
 * This is a valid a point, I'll get back to you with the info.--Mor2 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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". 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)

Israeli casualties update
The article only gives the number of Israelis injured between November 14 and 15 (about 70), but the Palestinian casualties are up to date. On November 19, the Jerusalem Post reported that over 252 Israelis have been injured. I think this should be mentioned in the lead and casualties section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * I suppose this thread is a continuation of Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense. 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)
 * 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?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because per (Notability (people)) that goes against doing that, while yes other stuff is there I do not object to an article that is set up similar to Casualties of the Gaza War if god forbid there are mass deaths on that scale as long as it just covers the people who pass the notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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: [], but I couldn't find anything credible on the latter. Ketil (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. Silver seren C 10:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.
 * (1) John Mearsheimer, 'A Pillar Built on Sand,' at London Review of Books, 16 November 2012.
 * (2)Steven Walt, Brain-dead on both sides, at Foreign Policy 16 November, 2012.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just say "most reportage on this is useless, because it consists of propaganda battles", and then offer Walt and Mearsheimer as objective reporting? That's hilarious. Also, please stop blogging your opinion about the "designs" of each side. Didn't you just accuse someone else of doing that, too? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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 --Mor2 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

This is looking a little WP:NOTFORUMy. Especially since the first comment reads like a WP:SOAP.Jonathanfu (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"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)
 * What section should it be moved to? A new section? ' Ankh '. Morpork  13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Palestinian misinformation? --Mor2 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ) --Mor2 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Totally aligned with you Asaifm (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The map
appears to be designed to show the reach of Gazan rockets (of particular interest for an Israeli POV) rather than represent the points of conflict in representational parity. Compare it to the Guardian http://gu.com/p/3bqz6/em map here, which is constructed to show the distribution of verifiable strikes. Perhaps technical wizards could incorporate its results, and make our map more consonant with NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I strong agree. The present map, although informative, does give a false impression that there is only rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. It would be awesome if we could somehow incorporate something like the Guardian map in order to give a better sense of the full distribution of attacks from both sides. 129.63.166.107 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That Guardian map looks really good. The current map is POV, but its better than having no pic at all.VR talk  22:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, the map is biased and contains incorrect features, a simple map identifying the Gaza Strip and Israel would be neutral, albeit boring. Sepsis II (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support -I agree that a good temporary solution would be to remove the current map, which gives an inaccurate overview of the situation, and replace it with a standard map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian map looks very informative and unbiased. I agree that it should be used in the article, if possible. The current one appears to only be a map of the Gaza Strip. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Something like what I've posted? Its the guardian map, but with all labels removed (and re-added manually).VR talk  05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what version of the map is up at the minute but I'm putting in the caption "that Israeli (should say "superior") ordnance can reach into any part of the Gaza Strip." Let's see if we can at least keep in that kind of caption?

American Poll
It seems odd to me to have a poll of Americans in the intro to an article about Israel and Palestine. I think that would fit better somewhere else in the article. I know there was a poll done by Haaretz of Israeli citizens opinion of the operation. That might fit better into the intro. Here's the article with the poll: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haaretz-poll-more-than-90-percent-of-israeli-jews-support-gaza-war.premium-1.478903. 129.63.166.107 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, such bagatelles should be placed elsewhere. ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It was added back in again. I left a message on Tritomex's talk page asking him to join this discussion. Capscap (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Images
Three images display rockets being fired from the Gaza strip. Can we limit this to one and agree on the best image? ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I only see one. I'm guessing someone handled this Capscap (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian Reaction
Gaza violence: India for direct Israel-Palestine talks NEW DELHI: 'Deeply concerned' at escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine, India today asked both sides to exercise maximum restraint and avoid taking any action that may further exacerbate the situation.

India also said it was necessary that direct talks begin between the two sides without any further delay.

"We are deeply concerned at the steep escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine, focused around Gaza, that threatens the peace and security of that region," the official spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs said on the violence in Gaza. Reference : Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.116.181 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please post this with other international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.116.181 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYN
I broke up a classic POV WP:SYN section in which every statement that included the words "war crime" in connection to one side was listed, headed by an unsourced sentence "Many people have accused this side of war crimes". In the cases where the statements were duplicated I consolidated them. In cases where they were novel I moved them to appropriate sections. The fact that I dealt with this content rather than deleting it does not mean that I necessarily consider it notable enough for the article or even accurately written. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For reasons I mentioned above, I think your reformatting and edits were necessary. Thanks Capscap (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The expostulations to a single strike from a non-notable non-legal body are insufficient to create a new section titled "war crimes." Their response had already been noted elsewhere. ' Ankh '. Morpork  08:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss this issue in greater detail tomorrow, but for now: if you're going to quote me, please don't misquote me. Thanks. And Ankh, you have a really non-standard definition of notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The section was almost entirely comprised of the reaction of Reporters with Borders. This NGO is hardly qualified to pronounce on jus in bello and should not form the basis of a separate section alleging war crimes. ' Ankh '. Morpork  10:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Discounting all markup and all text not directly related to cited content, the section was 404 words long. Of those 404 words, 139 of them were directly about RWB.  (Another 36 were about the IDF's response to RWB.)  The other 229ish words contained information from a Sky News correspondent at the scene, a foreign press asossication statement about the strike, an editorial by Haaretz, a quote from a Knesset member explicitly accusing the Israeli government of committing war crimes, a quote from the Arab League, and a statement (directly cited from an NYT article that stated it explicitly) that unspecified political leaders and human rights advocates described the death of the Al-Dalu family as a war crime. (Most of which has since disappeared from the article - the Al-Dalu bit of especial concern to me.)  Out of the eight reliable sources cited in the section, only had to do with RWB.  The section as written was certainly far from perfect, but saying "The section was almost entirely comprised of the reaction of Reporters with Borders" is literally objectively wrong.  I'm going to sleep now and will be active again here tomorrow.  I'm not sure how 34% of a section (and only 1/8 of the sources) could possibly be considered "almost entirely" comprising a section.  (I'm not trying to address other perceived deficiencies in the section in this post, just refuting your last post.)  Please strikethrough or otherwise modify your last post, as it's literally objectively wrong.    Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 246 words (61%) were about the RWB incident without any allegation of a war crime (condemnation + call for investigation ≠ war crime). Likewise, the Haaretz column (another 18%) also included no accusation of a violation of IHL and was merely prospective The Arab league part certainly fits better in the reaction section where it is now included. Capscap (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * RWB are notable, but their press releases are rather more nuanced than certain edits suggested, and WP:SYN is still WP:SYN. Poliocretes (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Only one photo of Gaza
There is only one photo of damage in Gaza compared to that of Israel. I think that's really unbalanced. Can someone add a photo of the damage in Gaza?--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk)
 * I don't know how to do photos, but I think a photo of the explosion (or aftermath) at the media building would be an appropriate addition to the timeline section Capscap (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are four photos showing the impact of the fighting: one of smoke rising from Gaza after a strike, one of a car burning in Gaza, one of damage to a house in Israel, and one of Israeli children running for cover. That seems pretty neutral to me. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the Wikicommons category that will lead to you a bunch of photos. If you don't know how to put them in, link here to ones you like and see if someone else will put it in for you. CarolMooreDC 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Xxhopingtearsxx is right, the casualities/suffereing/impact/death should be represented according to FACTS and numbers .Israel so far has 4 deaths vs. 120 on the palestinian side .No single picture of the many innocent palestinian people who were killed , this is disgusting!! . Cutedoctor (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Coup vs coup d'état
The reading I replaced had coup d'état, which has RS, even David Rose in Vanity Fair to back it. However it is clearly not the vox propria for what occurred. 'Coup d'état' involves the overthrow of the former governing power. Hamas had won the elections but the security apparatus remained in Fatah's hands. The legally constituted power of government lay with Hamas, therefore in overthrowing Fatah's security grip on the Strip it certainly engaged in a military coup, but not a 'coup d'état'. Its reasoning was that Fatah was about to stage a real coup d'état, as documented in Rose's Vanity Fair article, which, after using 'coup d'état' then adds: "'One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup. Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says." For Fatah it was a coup-d'état, for Hamas it was a preemptive coup. It was, in the proper English sense of the word, not a coup d'état. I therefore have replaced the question-begging term with the more neutral 'coup', with the gloss on preemptive, stating the Hamas perspective which happens to be the reading even of strategic experts hostile to Hamas, and a number of critical historians, and sourced this to an extensive comment made by the relevant paper of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, with an appropriate excerpt in a footnote. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is another case where it's legitimate to question the term RS uses by applying our own interpretation of what the "proper" usage is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

European Union and others positions removed from the introduction
Someone has removed the European Union and France from the sentence about what countries supported Israel's right to defend itself and condemned Hamas for rocket fire.. Now all that is left is US, UK and Canada. This looks like a blatant attempt to bias that sentence to make out like it was only those 3 countries. The european Union position and French position are both worthy for that sentence too, as the largest economic block on the planet / 1 of the permanent members of the UN Security council. Russia and Chinas neutral position has also been removed. There is a blatant attempt to waterdown that paragraph to further the Palestinian POV. Totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be reinserted. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "+1" more. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Media casualities and targeting non-military Hamas offices/personnel
The Israeli strikes at Media buildings and media personnel including Pro Hamas ones are increasing .. there should be a new section with sourced information.The statement and position by "reporters without border" which strongly condemned Israeli actions should be included: Link:http://en.rsf.org/palestinian-terr-pillar-of-defence-or-information-19-11-2012,43697.html

Even media who are Pro of what labelled as "terrorists" are protected by international law. Same thing applies to Banks, public offices , governmental offices ..etc

Cutedoctor (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating material
Can AnkhMorpork explain why he is repeating material that he knows is covered in another section? This is a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE, where a story is repeated to advance a certain POV.

This story should be covered in the timeline, like all casualty stories are, and should only be covered there, not in "media misrepresentation"?VR talk  19:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no problem, both section suppose to deal with different aspect of the event. As noted in one of the previous section, I think that 'Media misrepresentation' should be merged with 'Allegations of Hamas disinformation', under 'Social media and Internet'. And in the case of the event mentioned by 'Vice regent' the 16 November coverage should be trimmed. --Mor2 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By your logic we can or should repeat lots of events repeatedly in the article, say, like the killing of 11-month old Omar Mishrawi. We can mention him under November 14 and under a newly created section called "Attack on Journalists".
 * Secondly, what does the event have to do with media misrepresentation?VR talk  20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I reiterate, the information belongs in the timeline. I barely see any misrepresentation beyond the initial Palestinian allegation that it was caused by an Israeli strike. But even that is excused by Telegraph, which points out that "In the chaos, it is highly unlikely that Mr Kandil or anyone else at the hospital suspected that the death was the result of anything but an air strike."
 * In fact, Palestinian sources, like the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, came forward to publicly reject the Israeli air strike hypothesis. This has little to do with the media.VR talk  05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As there's no further objection, I'm merging the info back in the timeline.VR talk  04:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Time line dealing with events, while the 'Social media and Internet' and 'Media misrepresentation' extend information on the media aspect and perception of those events.--Mor2 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why 'Mohammed Sadallah' entry in the 'Media misrepresentation' was reverted?(I cant find any mention of him in the whole article) This is one of the prime examples of 'Media misrepresentation'. It was a highly publicized event and widely distributed by the media, blamed on Israel. The Egypt's prime minister shed a tear to the cameras during his visit and CNN called it "a symbol of civilian casualties" and it turned out he was the victim of a crashed Hamas rocket. (Sources  others are hiding in the history of the article)--Mor2 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

accusations of israeli war crimes
I wrote - and am preparing to import - a section detailing accusations of Israeli war crimes. It's not perfect, and could definitely use some balancing work - I'd encourage y'all to contribute to it. I think that with the number of reliable sources making such accusations a section dealing specifically about them is absolutel warranted, and I believe my initial draft is pretty well sourced.

It may make sense to have a general 'accusation of war crimes' section with one subsection dealing with accusations against Israelis and another subsection dealing with accusations against hamas and other palestinian groups, but I don't have time to implement that structure currently; I may work on it later, and would highly encourage any interested party to beat me to it.

Please don't do anything like just deleting this entire section without first bringing the issue to the talk page. I know my version isn't perfect, but do think a section is needed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous accusations of war crimes and the like have been made against both sides during this conflict, but the section you wrote focuses exclusively on accusations against Israel. I read through it, and it seems to show only one point of view. I don't see the need for a section on war crime allegations in general, especially when the conflict is still ongoing, as there is a separate section for reactions. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that the section I wrote focuses exclusively on accusations made against Israel. I would fully support (and will probably eventually create) a comparable section focusing exclusively on accusations made against Palestinian groups.  Given the amount of significant coverage of such accusations, I believe a separate section for each is quite warranted.  (It also will end up being more readable than the current formatting of the article.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)-p


 * Since the section is reliably sourced, it should not be removed. But we should add allegations of Hamas violations of international law - indiscriminate rocket fire kills civilians and is illegal. Otherwise the section is not neutral.VR talk  05:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly that an equivalent section should be developed to deal with accusations levied towards Palestinian groups. I'd suggest one broad header and then one subheader for each side.  I started with Israel because I felt that the article as it currently stood was leaning pro-Israeli instead of pro-Palestinian and since I only had time to write one right away, wrote them first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to be bold and change the section headers to how I think they should read. If you disagree please feel free to revert me with my blessing (and any passing admins: if VR does revert me, please consider it me self-reverting, and not him reverting, at least for the purposes of the 1rr this page is under.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a comment that adding new content leaning towards one side shouldn't be the way to balance the article; we should be trying to edit and balance out existing content. Else its like stacking new Jenga tiles on top of a Jenga stack instead of rebuilding the base.... Zhanzhao (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the text in the section is misplaced. The second paragraph (about the media tower) should be under "19 November." The condemnations of the attack that you cited do not allege war crimes. Likewise, the Haaretz article does not allege any war crimes in the current conflict. The part about the Arab League should probably be in the International Reaction section. Capscap (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there shouldn't be subsections separating accusations against Israel and Palestinians, and the combined allegations section (the paragraph about the Al-Dalu family) could be put under Reactions where it may fit in a new subsection. Capscap (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The expostulations to a single strike from a non-notable non-legal body are insufficient to create a new section titled "war crimes." Their response had already been noted elsewhere. As it stands, there is little basis for this section. ' Ankh '. Morpork  09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I EC'ed with you, and thus didn't see your reply. There are dozens of reliable sources reporting accusations of violations of customary international law on both sides of this conflict.  Also, if you don't consider RWB notable, your standards confuse me.  (And when I put the section in, their response had not in fact been already noted elsewhere.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I've realized that RWB's comment was actually noted elsewhere, albeit in extremely abbreviated form. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently too tired to dig through the rather long revision history in the couple hours I've been gone to figure out exactly who snipped what, but it concerns me that a significant amount of well-sourced relevant information to this article that I added a couple of hours ago has been almost entirely removed. (And that which hasn't been removed has been buried in the middle of a poorly organized chronology section so as to be unnoticed.) Tomorrow afternoon, I'll be readding most of the material I previously added, along with a substantial section dealing with similar accusations towards the Palestinian groups involved and fixing some existing statements to match what the sources actually say. It is of significant concern to me that there appears to be a systematic strong effort to whitewash this article to present an entirely pro-Israeli POV, instead of making an attempt at a NPOV. (And I don't just mean the material in this section: huge parts of this article are written in a POV fashion, often misrepresenting sources. Check some of my other recent edits if you want to know what I mean by misrepresenting sources.)  If the source misrepresentation continues, and if future attempts to add relevant information from reliable sources are reverted wholesale, then I'm going to start taking this to relevant noticeboards, which will include arbitration enforcement. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the change, but the WP:Synth talk below this is relevant. RWB didn't accuse Israel of war crimes like you implied. Condemnation is a reaction. Capscap (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get in to this issue in full detail tomorrow, but yeah, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire public statements have explicitly labeled the strike conducted by Israel as a war crime. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The RWB press release says: "“Even if the targeted media support Hamas, this does not in any way legitimize the attacks. We call for a transparent investigation into the circumstances of these air strikes. Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Those responsible must be identified.”". Seems that rather than explicitly labelling the specific strike a war crime, the RWB's response is rather more nuanced. Poliocretes (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing your link, how is saying "Israeli warplanes fired missiles on journalists intentionally, firing missiles at journalists is a war crime, we demand those responsible be identified" not the same thing as saying "We believe Israeli forces have committed a war crime"? I guess aliens could have stolen some Israeli F-16's, but short of that, it seems to be a pretty clear accusation that that specific strike was a violation of international law. Certainly, it's phrased diplomatically, but it's still clearly an accusation that one particular incident violated international law.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough, Kevin, to know what WP:BRD means. You are but one of multiple editors, and each has to prove the merits of his/her edits. Let's face it, if you re-add material, you might very well be edited again. We've all experienced this at one point or another in the past. This is not your article to decide what stays and what goes. If you've got evidence of a systematic effort on the part of one party, please provide it. Otherwise, it's a rather offensive accusation. Poliocretes (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my earlier statement and will in fact expand it: this article is experiencing a ridiculous amount of POV pushing, including wholesale misrepresentation of sources, absolutely insane amounts of synthesis (especially in the background section,) and significant efforts to whitewash anything that doesn't look good for Israel from the article. I'm not levying an accusation against any specific person: the edit history of this article is too convoluted for me to do so without a lot of diff hopping.  If it turns out to be necessary, I'll have absolutely no problem compiling a large list of diffs tomorrow for an ANI post or AE request showing this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but I think you will discover that what's currently going on here is rather routine for Israel/Palestine related articles, especially in times of conflict. Poliocretes (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm totally aware that anything covered by the PIA arbcom stuff tends to be a complete mess. That doesn't make anything in my prior statement incorrect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true, just because the kind of tendentious editing you have described is commonplace it does not make it right, and it does not mean we shouldn't try to do something about it. Dlv999 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I find particularly amusing about this thread is that someone who admits he wrote an NPOV violating section, deliberately focusing on one side, accuses others of POV pushing. The "don't take it out of the article without discussing here first" was a really nice touch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you merely accidentally misread my words, but I certainly did not admit I wrote an 'NPOV violating section.' (Writing a section focusing on one side, if done in a manner that uses represents points of view published in reliable sources in a way roughly proportional to how they are represented, is not a POV problem.  Entire articles are not written at once; by your standard, someone who edited the section about Israeli casualties without also editing the section about Palestinian casualties would be POV-pushing.)  Please do not again suggest that I "admit I wrote an NPOV violating section".  Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess what got me confused is where you said you thought the article was too pro-Israel, so decided to add a section about allegations against Israel while knowing that sources also make similar allegations against Palestinians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To avoid POV issues, I would like that any section dealing with war crimes start with actual war crimes and then continue to allegations(that we will probably have to wait several month to authenticate). By international law every rocket fired by Hamas at a non-military Israeli target is a war crime(virtually all of them). Then you can go with allegations of various people who interpret the UN Charter about the use of reasonable force against military.--Mor2 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is not biased, it covers details on both sides including the number of civilians killed by Israel. Im afraid some of those pushing the line the article is bias are infact pushing for the article to be biased in favour of palestinian POV. If people have specific concerns about content then they get discussed and consensus is attempted to be reached. Some people dislike the article title and have been moaning about it being biased.. this has been rejected by most and a clear majority supported the current article title, there are numerous articles about operations named as those operations. Attempts to flood the article with 1 sided accusations of war crimes are of course totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only way to prove one is neutral, is to consistently edit in material in articles that is both well sourced and not in favour of one's personal POV. I only AGf on this when I see editors willing to do this. It is not commonplace, and virtually absent from this page. What happens on breaking news pages is a flurry of edits by large numbers of editors fresh to the I/P area who stay with the article until the news is no longer on the front pages, ensuring that a government's position dominates. Then, once the emergency has expired, they leave and solid editors step in and try to fix the damage done to wikipedia by editors engaged in defending a political position. By that date, of course, no one is reading it.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporters without borders
RWB released a statement saying that Israeli attacks against news organizations were attacks against civilians, and thus war crimes. Many secondary sources have picked up this story. Why can't we report it, including RWB's clear statement that attacks on news organizations are war crimes?VR talk  06:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only clear statement was they believe the attacks constitute obstruction of freedom of information and that they called for a transparent investigation. They didn't actually allege that the attack targeted civilians. Capscap (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * RWB clearly says "Reporters Without Borders condemns Israeli air strikes targeting news organizations". They further said: "We remind the Israeli authorities that, under humanitarian law, the news media enjoy the same protection as civilians and cannot be regarded as military targets. Even if the targeted media support Hamas, this does not in any way legitimize the attacks...Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes."
 * If we can't agree on a wording, then we can quote RWB verbatim. But you can't remove RWB's allegations of war crimes, esp. since we have such allegations against Hamas.VR talk  07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a quote. Feel free to edit it if you find it necessary. Capscap (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what you wrote is fair. Thanks,VR talk  08:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited what you wrote a bit, mostly to include a fuller quote, and to actively identify who actually said it. I'd also like to point out that RWB's statements have explicitly stated that they believe Israel's actions to constitute war crimes this whole time, including their initial statements, despite what some posters in the earlier section said. Also I'm editing from intermittent amtrak wifi, so if I editconflict weirdly or something, it's probably because of that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Social media and Internet, Add Carlos Latuff Cartoons
Carlos Latuff has a significant stack of cartoons supporting the Palestinian side and they are all shared on the social media. I would like to add subsection discussing his support. Asaifm (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this notable? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The neo-Nazi Carlos Latuff is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.81.100 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

media building
The IAF hit four Islamic Jihad militants hiding out in the media building on the 19th. The current entry for this event does not make this clear. Rather, it mentions the attack on the media center as if it were itself the target, and only mentions the dead militant as in an afterthought. Objective presentation would make it clear that the militants, not the building, were the target. Tkuvho (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, its another example of where there is clearly biased wording against Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's propose a wording here so as to avoid risking reverts on the page itself. Do you have a neutral source reporting this?  Tkuvho (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an article (in Hebrew) that says a foreign journalist said he an his colleagues were upset when they found out militants were using the building and putting them in danger. He spoke anonymously for fear of reprisals. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The current section is an accurate reflection of numerous mainstream English language RS that are the cited sources for the section. If editors are saying there is a significant view that has been published in RS that is not covered, and should be covered, fair enough. But I see no justification for removing well sourced information that obviously represents views published in numerous RS with a material from a single non-English language news source. Dlv999 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here User:Dlv999 may be misrepresenting the situation. There is perhaps only one source reporting that a foreign journalist was upset that militants were using the building as a hide-out.  However, there are indeed additional sources that report that the IAF hit Islamic Jihad militants hiding out in the media building.  Emphasizing the fact that the building was hit and de-emphasizing the fact that an Islamic Jihadist was the target and was indeed killed in the attack, is tendentious.  Tkuvho (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

More accurate map?
This map is from Reuters. I reccomend merging it with the current map at the top of this article. This is a very good, high-res, and informative map.--24.246.112.51 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed its a very good informational map, is it free? because there is no way I can reproduce it, if someone else can or you can find a free alternative(or something similar in the wikicommons) then maybe we could use it in on of the sections. It would also work for the infobox if we remove everything left of the shore line --Mor2 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an article that describes rocket fire from Gaza. This map would be better placed there. This article is about Gaza and the main map should really emphasis that. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, these maps are each very partial, we need better, wider, qualitative and quantitative. Please, help to gather map resources below ({citation} template welcome) Yug (talk)  22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC):
 * Map resources gathering
 * http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2012/11/15/jours-tranquilles-en-cisjordanie
 * the BBC's maps
 * http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=207845 : about Gaza missiles, range and types.
 * It seems like what the BBC has is good and helps to preserve a NPOV. Most of these maps are restricted in their direct usage, although we could use the information from these maps to construct or reconstruct maps. The source of the Reuters map can be cited as it is a reliable source- {source}. That URL should contain all of the data used to construct the Reuters map. As for the BBC maps, we also cannot directly use it and will have to copy over the information to a new map and source the map, and luckily that BBC article link does work as a reliable source.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like what the BBC has is good and helps to preserve a NPOV. Most of these maps are restricted in their direct usage, although we could use the information from these maps to construct or reconstruct maps. The source of the Reuters map can be cited as it is a reliable source- {source}. That URL should contain all of the data used to construct the Reuters map. As for the BBC maps, we also cannot directly use it and will have to copy over the information to a new map and source the map, and luckily that BBC article link does work as a reliable source.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great map by CBC.VR talk  05:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - seems neutral.VR talk  03:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Only israelian sources
Almost all notices are from israelian sources and journals, included injured israelian people and palestinian missiles number : not a single news of that from relevant sources as BBC, NBC, le figaro, la stampa, the times, or similar.

In my opinion this article is not equilibrate at all and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.171.210 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, it probably won't get deleted. If you have specific suggestions though we'd be happy to hear them.
 * Having a little trouble understanding your English though. I think instead of "equilibrate" you mean equal or neutral? NickCT (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe that the operative word intended here was "[not] balanced" - which is certainly an opinion I can not concur with; as there are quite a lot non-Israeli sources used in the article.-Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hon-3s-T - Yeah. And lots of Palestinian sources too. Oh no.... wait... that's not right. NickCT (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are quite some in the article.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not good, since Israel is a participant in the conflict.--Ezzex (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing problems
There are a significant number of statements in this article that do not accurately reflect the sources they are cited to. I don't want to run afoul of 1RR and with the recent edit history of this article being so long, I'd have trouble determining which of these misrepresentations were added within the last day. If these sourcing problems persist, I'll be adding and other appropriate tags to the article in the near future. For ease of discussion, I'll be bulleting and signing these separately, feel free to reply in line. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the introduction, this source] does not support the statement "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events:". I'm sure an appropriate source can be found and added (and have no doubts that the statement is accurate,) but this citation doesn't support the statement.  The four sources used to support the next statement also do not support the statement that 'According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events."  As the paragraph stands, it is inappropriate synthesis.  I'm sure it's possible to rewrite this paragraph to avoid synthesis issues, and such should be done.  (Also, liveleak is not an appropriate source.  It looks like it's primarily a copy of a ynetnews article, which would probably be an appropriate source once the synthesis issues are fixed.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By defining the article as the Israeli Operation, there is an automatic exclusion of the possibility of explaining the opposing Hamas/Palestinian perspective, which would regard the rockets as a response to several long-term factors, outlined in, for example, Jonathan Cook's Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza, at Al-Jazeerah November 19, 2012. That is why the title prejudges the contents of the lead and the article and must be changed to reflect NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that for reasons of neutrality the title should be changed. My point here was just that the current contents of that paragraph are not actually supported by the sources given - so even ignoring neutrality concerns, the sourcing is woefully insufficient. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of the introduction, this source does not support the statement "including rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, and facilities of the Hamas authority in Gaza" and the other cited source seems to just redirect to jpost's homepage. I'm positive the statement is accurate, but it's sourcing is inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This citation is used to support the statement "The conflict in its current form is ongoing since the Islamic party Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election." The citation supports part of the statement - it confirms that Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election - but it does not support the first half of the statement.  Without a source for it, the first half of the statement as it stands is unsupported original research.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment. Cook, and many other sources, would argue that 'The conflict predates the rockets – and even the creation of Hamas – by decades' (see the source cited above). But 'in its current form' is not really objectionable, though it would be better to source it.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the last paragraphs of the pre-operation section - the paragraph that starts "On November 12..." is inappropriately synthetic. The sentence following the sentence about Hamas'/PIJ's stated willingness to discuss a ceasefire reads "However, Palestinians fired 12 rockets at Israel throughout the day."  Although the sources for the first sentence do confirm Hamas'/PIJ's stated willingness to discuss a ceasefire, and the sources for the second sentence do confirm that Palestinians fired 12 rockets at Israel through that day, the sources do not discuss the rockets in the specific context of the ceasefire.  As the paragraph stands, it's a classic example of synthesis; it combines information from source A (the hamas/pij related source) and source B (the 12 rockets source) to imply conclusion C (that hamas' offer was disingenuous.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Under the casualties section, it says "The Israeli air force says that it avoids harming Palestinian civilians," using this source. The source says that the Israeli air force says that it takes all possible measures to avoid harming Palestinian civilians, not that the Israeli air force avoids harming Palestinian civilians. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Capscap (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't spend a huge amount of time compiling this list, and I think that most of these examples are pretty indisputable. The sourcing in this article is a complete and total mess. Most of the sourcing problems I wrote up here do not represent incredibly significant POV problems, but it amazes and depresses me that out of the first 7 sentences I checked, 5 had inappropriate sourcing. I'll repair some of these myself later once I figure out a way to ensure I don't violate 1rr. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked through more of the article, there are even more problems with misinterpreted sources than I had previously thought. I'm adding a citecheck template to the article.  With the examples I've given here and plenty instances of source distortion in the article, I think the template is more than justified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations for Japan, Australia and Canada considering Hamas a terrorist organization
This article currently has citations for the US and the European Union considering Hamas a terrorist organization, but not for Canada and Japan (Australia is not mentioned, though it also considers Hamas a terrorist group). Here's some sources for Japan, Australia and Canada, if someone would like to add them. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Australia only considers the Brigades as terrorist, not Hamas. Canada lists Hamas as "associated with terrorism" in order to freeze the assetts of Hamas associated charities for allegedly giving money to the Brigades. Some of these charities have taken the government to court and had the freeze lifted. Canada does not list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Likewise Japan lists Hamas seperately from terrorist organisations for exactly the same reason. Wayne (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting sources for content that is already a part of this article. Did you read them? They clearly state that Hamas is considered a "terrorist organization" by these countries. Not "associated with terrorism". Can you give reliable sources to back up what your claims? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Two operations ... Article name
If this article is called "Operation Pillar of Defense" then it is primarily about the Israeli operations. Is there a corresponding article about the Hamas' "Operation Stones of Baked Clay"? If not, then this ought to be named "Gaza/Israel conflict of November 2012" or something along those lines. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No this article is about the Operation Pillar of Defense" and the responses to it, similarly to any other Operation articles on the wiki. if you would like to create an article about hamas "Operation Stones of Baked Clay" and have enogh notable content please do.--Mor2 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @SVT Cobra. You are correct. Please add your comments to the requested name change discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Requested_move_to_2012_Gaza_Conflict). Dlv999 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede is still POV
Currently the first paragraph of the lede reads as:

There is no mention of the Palestinian POV, even though Hamas has historically always  said that it won't end rocket fire until the blockade is lifted.VR  talk  05:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is the most important part of the article to be NPOV. Of course, since the lead is usually what sets the tone for the rest of the article, and it has the most impact on readers, it will also be subject to most intense efforts for POV-pushing. Currently, it has the IDF pov nicely laid out, and the IDF justifications, but it has no mention of the Palestinian POV at all. You have your work cut out for you if you want to fix this imbalance. Unflavoured (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have added the Palestinian rationale. I'm open to different wordings. I think the "three events" cited are too much detail for the lead. They can be summarized as, "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to Palestinian rocket fire, and attacks against Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Gaza border."VR talk  07:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not object to a sentence mentioning the palestinian justification for the rocket attacks, but im not sure about the present wording. The article introduction goes out of its way to use terms like "the stated aim" and "According to the Israeli government". I feel "Palestinian militants cite the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, as the reason for rocket attacks" is too much like a statement of fact as the "only reasons" for the rocket fire. I think saying "Palestinian militants claim... justify the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians", might be more neutral. But i do accept a sentence is needed there so wont make changes to it unless there is support for any alterations.  BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Better yet 'Gaza militants' or something of the sort, to avoid confusion with the "West Bank" that take no part in the Gaza-Israeli conflict (or any conflict in the past 5 years?)--Mor2 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)