Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 13

Suggested second paragraph of the lead
This has been going on for over a month. I suggest this (pinging ):

"The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions intensified after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members. Israel considered Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza and carried out air-strikes there. On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel."

Comments below.

Comments
I have made two changes:
 * Added "Israel considered Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza and carried out air-strikes there"
 * Changed the next sentence slightly to "On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis..." instead of saying explicitly it was an airstrike. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this attempt at compromise. That said, I do not think anyone denies there was an Israeli airstrike on a tunnel in Khan Yunis, although there is some question as to when it occurred and if it caused the explosion that killed the Hamas operatives. In addition, I believe we should mention the airstrike was on a tunnel (which the Israelis claimed was being used for an "imminent terror attack"). I would prefer something like "Hamas assumed formal responsibility for firing rockets towards Israel on July 7, after an Israeli aistrike on a tunnel reportedly killed 7 Hamas members in Khan Yunis, although Israel denied responsibility for their deaths" (could be explained in the body).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid NPOV does not mean "he said/she said". Hamas says six members of its military wing died in a strike, Israel says, no, it was a collapsed tunnel etc. The same WP:RS which are used for "non-Hamas" are also used for the "7 Hamas militants killed by an airstrike". I removed the airstrike because the precise manner of death is not important: 7 Hamas militants were killed, they responded with rockets, and Israel responded with OPE. I am open to whether the he said/she said should be discussed in the "immediate events" section, but definitely not in the lead. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you object to mentioning at all in this paragraph that Israel denies killing the 7 in the tunnel ? The facts of the airstrike and their death seem undeniable, and so is Hamas's claim that Israel killed them and the resulting rocket fire. He said/she said doesn't have to imply equal validity - it can be written that Israel initially assumed responsibility for the killing but latter said they were killed by explosives in the tunnel (It is what the sources say, right ?) WarKosign (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To your latter question, no, the sources do not say that. Newspapers report he said/she said -- that's their job. The sources in the first sentence (Thrall and Hendrickson) say that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6 in a bombing raid. As I said, the precise manner in which they died is not important, but the agency (X killed Y) should not be obfuscated. (I am happy with adding "bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza") Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume the second half of the second paragraph ("On 17 July [... ... ...] apart or expired.") has only been omitted because it isn't being changed and not because anyone is suggesting dropping it. Kingsindian's proposed rewriting looks good to me. If including the details that the seven people died "by airstrike" and "in a tunnel" is important, the most concise way of doing that I can think of is to change "after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis" to "after an Israeli airstrike on a tunnel in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas militants". I don't oppose adding either of those details, though I note that I also don't think they're so vital that they have to be in the lead, and I imagine including the tunnel bit does make it more likely that people will try to insert Israel's prediction that the tunnel was going to be used for an attack, which could then prompt other people to try to insert information on the Israeli acts that Gazans cite as causing them to launch such attacks, which would bring us back to what was discussed a few weeks ago — the parties involved see everything as tit-for-tat-for-tit-for-tat for the last ~60–6000 years. For better or for worse (probably for better), we've so far managed to avoid listing too many "hops" (as Kingsindian put it; i.e. links in the chain of events) per event; for example, we don't give any context on why Palestinians kidnapped and murdered the 3 Israeli teens, and we don't mention the Beitunia killings which some sources suggest was a cause of this conflict. -sche (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reason to include the airstrike and the tunnel if the fact that they were killed by the airstrike is disputed. According to this source, quoting "a senior military source" presumably in the IDF:


 * TheTimesAreChanging's RfC, with all the problems in its definition, is there to decide whether this claim should be represented, in the lead or elsewhere. I think the lead should state that the cause of the death is disputed, and then include the details of the conflicting versions in Immediate events. WarKosign (talk)
 * I have nothing further to add, please see the earlier comment. Yes, Israel made claims, and Hamas made claims, and newspapers reported them: that's their job. No, we are not obliged to add anything either side says in the lead, just as we are not obliged to add that Hamas claims 1000 soldiers killed. We look at what neutral WP:RS say, I gave two examples, rest can be seen in the section. If you disagree, open an RfC precisely stating what you want to include, and let people make comments. The previous RfC is useless, for reasons already mentioned. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was only jpost I would agree that it falls under WP:FRINGE. However, there is also Haaretz here and here saying "Nine Palestinian militants were killed over the course of the night, but Israel claims at least six of them died when a tunnel collapsed" and "...lead forces were hit, apparently in a “work accident.”", and IBA also reported the same incident (translation). Hamas shouting loudly "Israel did it" does not make it the truth. WarKosign (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When there is a source conflict like this on a specific event, editors have two options. Delineate in detail both versions and variants or make a concise synthetic sentence which is prejudicial neither to one claim nor the other. If the former, it becomes unusable in the lead (excess detail =wp:undue for lead paras), if the latter it can be used in the lead. Remember TTAAC, this is not about the 'truth' because that is unknown, at the moment, to us.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the context of the talk page, by 'truth' I mean 'neutral and accurate representation of reliable sources' -WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BBC reported it too: "Hamas said it was responding to "Zionist aggression", after accusing Israel of killing five of its fighters. Israel denied killing the men, but warned of a "deterioration" and said 1,500 reservists had been called up." I tried - and failed - to find the places in Thrall's and/or Hendrickson's works where they say that Israel killed the militants, or mention the Khan Younis incident at all. Please point me to them. 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants" (Thrall), "killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6" (Hendrickson). Full quotes are given in the section as above. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that the sources are reconcilable. According to many sources IDF bombed in the area of the tunnels a few days before the event, then the militants entered the tunnel (probably to assess the damage to the explosives they had in the tunnel), and it's entirely possible the explosives were unstable and exploded killing the militants - whether because of their carelessness or just vibration from their footsteps. It can be argued if the cause of their death was the bombing or the presence of the explosives - without either they wouldn't die. Thrall and Hendrickson (and Hamas) see Israel as responsible, but do not give details that contradict Israel's factual claim, only the attribution of responsibility. 11:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In the proposed section, if we accept that Israel killing the 7 in Khan Yunis is not the only possible version of the truth, what can be written instead to be short and acceptable ? How about this: On 7 July after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis with the sides disagreeing on the cause (Israel's airstrike or militants accidentally triggering explosives), Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel. Or even shorter: On 7 July after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis with the sides disagreeing on the cause, Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel. I think second one is too short to be clear. WarKosign (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I do not accept your hypothetical, I will not comment on it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. Whoosh, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE 1: It sounds quite silly, non-Hamas increased attacks in response to crack down on Hamas.... are there more than one source for this?
 * NOTE 2: I'm not loving the first paragraph. I don't mean to disrupt discussion about the 2nd one, but "Thereafter, seven weeks of Israeli bombardment, Palestinian rocket attacks, and ground fighting" seems like unnecessary information, plus one fluff term for the Israeli offensive. Why not just use something like, fighting concluded after 50 days while discussion on full terms of the ceasefire were to be continued. Push casualty figures down. They serve mostly for a POV view that you good/bad/winner/loser is defined by the number of casualties.
 * Obviously, I support WarKosign's proposal, with further elaboration provided in the body. Only Kingsindian seems to be holding back any such changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the Israeli position on Hamas rocket fire undue?
This article currently states that Hamas only started firing rockets in response to an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis that killed several Hamas members on July 6 or July 7. Should the lead and "Background" sections include statements by Israeli officials and news reports claiming that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30, while the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels? Note that one of the sources cited in the lead--The Christian Science Monitor--actually supports the Israeli version. Seemingly conflicting statements from IDF spokesmen Lerner on July 7, and the perception that this material is POV, have been cited as reasons to exclude this material.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional source on July 7: "Addressing the deaths of seven Hamas members in a tunnel in south Gaza, the source said they died as a result of explosives they planted in an underground assault tunnel aimed at an IDF target. "This was designed to enable a significant terror attack," the source said. "In recent days, we have operated in this area, and we will continue to act against the threat of tunnels in the coming days," he added. The seven Hamas members did not die as a result of an Israeli air strike, the source explained. The tunnel was found by the army a few days ago. "Last night, for reasons that are unclear, Hamas decided to handle the explosives. They handled bombs that were in the tunnel, and were ready to go off against military targets. The explosives went off, leading to seven casualties," said the source." The article should at least include the Israeli claim that the tunnel was being used for an imminent terror attack, as well as the Israeli position that "Even when the rocket is fired by some rogue group at Sderot or Israel's southern communities, we view Hamas as responsible, because Hamas is in charge of the territory...Either Hamas puts an end to rocket fire, or we put an end to it."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Include Israeli position. Mainstream sources. Notable. Reliable as well. Not like a comic book. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It turns out that part of this story was actually invented by Wikipedia editors.
 * Here is what the body of this article says: "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid on the house of a Hamas operative in Khan Yunis killed seven people.[99][153][154] The following day, Hamas referred to the incident as a "massacre against women and children [and] a horrendous war crime" and claimed "all Israelis have now become legitimate targets"; it then assumed formal responsibility for launching rocket attacks on Israel."
 * Even if the Israeli airstrike on the tunnel was launched on July 6 (or July 7, as many sources say it was on a Monday), this Wikipedia narrative is the product of careless and sloppy editing, because seven people were killed in a strike on a Hamas member's house in Khan Yunis. However, this bombing occurred on July 8, after Hamas took formal responsibility for and massively increased rocket fire against Israel. The source cited in the article, which is dated July 9, is being misrepresented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So someone messed up the Wikipedia article. Nice catch. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks correct. It looks like during copyediting the passage, the two events have been mixed up. I remember earlier that they used to separate. See this diff. Pinging to let him know. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh; my bad. In the diff Kingsindian provides, it looks like I indeed made the mistake of assuming that "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli strike killed seven Hamas militants" and "an Israeli air raid on Khan Yunis on 6 July [...] killed seven people" were referring to the same event. Sigh. As I recall, there has long been confusion (in this article) about the Khan Yunis event(s), with Hamas' reference to the "Khan Yunis massacre" even being wikilinked to the 1956 [[Khan Yunis massacre]](!) by more than one editor. -sche (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the way the RfC is defined is problematic. What should be the reply of someone who think that Israeli statements are not undue, but POV ? Or perhaps someone thinks the sources are unreliable ? Or any other reason for whatever opinion they have ? I think the question should give simple statements (backed up by sources) that are not currently in the lead and ask whether they should be represented in the lead. Let each replying editor say which policy or other reason makes them think whatever they think. WarKosign (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not merely about the lead, but whether the statements summarized above should be included in any capacity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. So there should be the facts in question, and the editors should say whether they should appear in the article, why, and if yes - where and how. WarKosign (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Drop-in comment from InterWiki WikiProjects left over from unresolved Dispute Resolution; Based on the translations of the InterWiki pages for the article at both the Hebrew version (Israel) and the Arabic version (Persian), neither one of these versions of the Lede is particularly concerned with the issue of events in the immediate 7 days leading to the start of the Operation. Both of the versions cover some mention of the thirty (30) days leading up the operation and the general increasing tensions over those thirty days in their entirety as leading to the Operation starting in July. The Hebrew version states this fact succinctly before continuing with the Lede, while the Arabic version provides two or three added sentences enumerating some examples of the escalating tensions occurring during the 30-day period leading up to the start of the Operation in July. Neither version singles out the seven days just before the Operation itself as being given highlighted attention in the Lede. FelixRosch (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some place I can see the translation? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Preliminary draft trans of Arabic version (only for prelim comparison, requires redo if used for editing): "...Operation Protective Edge followed the abduction and murder of three teenagers in Israel on June12. Israeli Defense Forces asserted that Hamas was considered responsible for the kidnapping. They further claimed that the two men suspected of carrying out the kidnapping were also members of Hamas (2 cites given). Israel Defense Forces have offered no direct evidence of this and Hamas has denied any involvement in the kidnapping (1 cite given). In the wake of the three kidnappings, the killing of 10 Palestinians under 18 years of age had been reported (1 cite), along with hundreds of arrests in the West Bank (2 cites). During the search for three missing Israelis, others were also re-arrested. Between 350 and 600 Palestinians were arrested (4 cites) which included mostly Hamas members in West Jordan (3 cites). On the night of July 6, six further militants were killed (1 cite). On 7 July in resonse to the firing of Hamas rockets from Gaza, Israel fired 100 missile rockets into the area, along with several Air Force bombing aids in Gaza (1 cite)...". [Arabic prelim translation posted on request above from InterWiki WikiProjects.] FelixRosch (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a good translation, but lets you get the main ideas. Can someone please repeat what exactly is questioned, I seem to have lost track of the conflicting versions/claims.WarKosign (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Include Israeli position. Policy based argument per WP:NPOV. For the same reason it has to go to same places where the opposite opinion is already mentioned (lead). --Tritomex (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop-in comment from InterWiki WikiProjects; As stated above the Hebrew version (Israel) and Arabic version (Persian) both did not dwell on the 7 days period just prior to the start of the Operation, but only on the 30-days period of escalating tensions. The Hebrew version included less than half of the material on this than the Arabic version. The Arabic translation above was marked as Preliminary 3 times, it is not for use for editing, only as a requested prelim translation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Include both versions of the event, per NPOV, since both POVs have RS now. I still think the RfC in its current form is pointless - it can't be undue to represent both POVs if there are proper sources. WarKosign (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The header is talking about rocket fire from June 30, while a new paragraph is talking about bombing raid on tunnels on July 6. I have no idea what this RfC aims to achieve, but it is useless in the current form, as has been mentioned already not just by me. There is no concrete proposal or issue on which there can be a discussion. But people are free to waste their time on it if they wish. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah... to adapt a line from Mr. T, I pity the naive user who tries to !vote here. The RFC has concerned itself with too many general questions; it's hard to see how it could reach any actionable result. -sche (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Kingsindian: "The header is talking about rocket fire from June 30, while a new paragraph is talking about bombing raid on tunnels on July 6." That is a blatantly untrue statement, suggesting you did not bother to read the header before commenting. There are two components to the Israeli claim, my question is whether the material is undue. WarKosign says "it can't be undue to represent both POVs if there are proper sources", and you agree with his sentiment that further discussion here is "pointless", so should we move ahead to adding this material to the article or discussing what language should be used?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The section heading is: "RfC: Is the Israeli position on Hamas rocket fire undue?" Everybody commenting had already commented on the talk page before, in the section just above "Problems with the introduction". As I told you from the very beginning, this RfC is useless. You ignored me, and even collapsed by comment improperly. Ask any uninvolved admin whether this RfC is worth a damn: I will eat my hat if they say yes. So: no we draw no conclusion at all from this. I suggest dumping this totally useless RfC and starting a new one, with a clear, brief, neutral proposal of exactly what you want. If you have comments or elaboration, add them below, like others have done. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described?
Currently the article quotes several sources    and says in the lead "On 7 July, after an airstrike killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis..." and again in Immediate Events "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas operatives".

There are several sources saying that Israel denies killing the operatives:    (translation), some of them saying that the operatives weren't in the tunnel during the airstrike and died some time later, when explosives stored in the tunnel went off.

What should the article say on the subject? WarKosign (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief comments

 * Include both versions, per WP:NPOV. Neutral statement in the lead (do not mention cause of death or mention that it is disputed) and give details of both versions in Immediate Events. WarKosign (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already given my suggestion of how it should be presented in the lead. WP:NPOV is not false balance. All the sources given above for the "alternative view" are news sources simply reporting what each side claims. That is their job. A slew of neutral, mainstream, third party secondary sources state that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6. The precise manner in which they died is not important, so it is left out in my draft. Two sources are cited, but many more can be given. This is a list of sources, , , , , . (All are in this section). Some of them can be dismissed as biased etc. but not all. These sources have a much higher weight than any "he said/she said" source. Furthermore, as stated in many sources, those were not the only people who died on July 6. There were multiple airstrikes on July 6, in which upto 9 people were killed. Erasing the agent which killed them is not WP:NPOV. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion consists of omitting the cause of death of the militants, but to say that Israel is responsible. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoosh, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove from lead (keep in a detailed step by step fighting development section) (first option) - this tunnel incident is a complete non-notable as a so-called trigger for the fighting. It is a small unavoidable step, not a flaming match. No one should care about it in the wider perspective. e.g. this source doesn't care: Since the start on the night of 7 July 2014.... On the same level, IDF's spokesman Peter Lerner re-tweeted a BBC report about "#Pallywood"
 * Keep mention to minimum -- While I consider this incident a non-notable for the WP:LEAD, if consensus prefers they'd be mentioned, I'd promote giving as little detail/varying views as possible in the lead. Thus, just mention Hamas viewed Israel as responsible for killing of 6 militants/civilians on July 7th, promised consequences and increased rocket attacks, launching 120 projectiles into Israel. Israel, thus, blah blah... (rockets have bigger impact as a lit match than a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel)
 * (third option) Mention everything - both views on tunnel incident and Pallywood report (above) - Israeli military spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner: "militants went into the tunnel to assess the damage from the air strike and meddled with some explosives", Here it is again from an ABC News Correspondent (retweeted by Lerner).
 * Querry: what's the copyright status on the image of these 6 guys on this site?
 * Keep mention to minimum if at all since minor event and mention in the body is sufficient. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Include both per WarKosign.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mention both We should tell what sources report per WP:DUE and we should mention all the information on the event per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is There is, as Kingsindian wrote, full of sources which says Hamas started firing rockets on 6/7 July while and as showed by Nishidani in the discussion at WP:DRN, J.J. Goldberg backtracked from his claim. In addition to the sources mentioned above, Noam Chomsky has also said it, as I've written before here. It's also wrong to say this is Hamas' view when neutral sources state it as their own view. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I am not clear what your position is. In my suggested draft for the lead, the cause of death (airstrike or tunnel collapse) is not mentioned. Is that acceptable or not? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Moved your comment to Discussion) I see the draft saying "On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, ...". In my opinion Israel killing the militants is not a fact but rather a claim and should be represented as such. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been going on for over a week about how things should be precise. Why don't people write concretely what their proposal is, like I did? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand what your proposal is. I am trying to be as precise as possible. The sources seem to agree that OPE started on July 8 as a reaction to Hamas taking responsibility for heavy rocket fire on July 7, which they declared was in reaction to the airstrike on July 6 that supposedly killed 7 militants. Currently the lead does not detail other airstrikes and other rocket fire, only mentioning a crackdown and that the rocket fire "intensified". In Immediate Events both are mentioned, including numbers of Palestinians killed and arrested, and number of rockets fired. This RfC deals specifically with the event in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 that began with IDF airstrike and ended with Hamas taking responsibility for rocket fire. It is possible that IDF killed the militants and Hamas was correct to attribute the responsibility. It is also possible that the militants blew themselves up on their own and the airstrike was unrelated. In my opinion it is most probable that both the airstrike and their own actions were contributing factors. Since we cannot know which version is correct, I say that we either represent both or represent none. The fact that respectable scholars do not mention the Israeli claim may mean either that they discarded it as completely false, or that they were unaware of it, or (in my opinion most likely) they did not consider the question of responsibility for death of the militants important - the fact that Hamas blamed Israel and commenced heavy fire is far more important, therefore I prefer to have the lead say just that, and explain the details in Immediate Events. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This debate is moot since Israel attacked more than one tunnel and Hamas responded to that, not to the killing of a few nobodys in a tunnel. 120 rockets. But even that number doesn't belong in the lead. These are natural progressions of war, not something everyone reading just the lead wants to know. I'd rather both numbers be relegated down than have both mentioned. As for conflicting versions (if you insist on keeping this), just use "Hamas viewed Israel as responsible". No one can argue about that phrasing and it would certainly be long lasting. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OPE was launched in response to Hamas officially taking responsibility for rocket fire. Hamas said that they fired in response to the killing of the militants, so this alleged killing is more important that several others, and I don't see how it can be omitted entirely from the lead. At very least it should say that Hamas blamed Israel for the killing and took responsibility for the fire. We do not have to mention in the lead whether the blame was placed correctly or not.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording about ITIC's view
WarKosign has reverted me and I have hard to understand the argument. The words "they said the" doesn't change that it is still presented as that this is what ITIC believes happened. However, by removing it and having it like it is now, it gives the view that ITIC did in fact find inaccuracies. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC reported that ITIC said
Here  you tried to make it clear that ITIC's report that GHM falsified ages of some militants is not a fact fully accepted by all sides, but the resulting text makes no sense - ITIC reported cases of (alleged) falsification, not cases of ITIC saying there was a falsification. The report regarding the falsification is already attributed to ITIC in the same sentence. Please explain what exactly is your concern with the current text. "what they say is" could be added to nearly every POV statement in the text, and it will only serve to make it less readable, for example: "UNICEF and the Gaza Health Ministry reported that from 8 July to 2 August, what they say are 296–315 Palestinian children died due to Israeli action". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because there are two parts after the first part that say "ITIC reported cases where children and teenagers served as militants". While the latter part is clear that it's ITIC's view, the two other parts are not, and that's why I changed it. Similary, the part in the table I edited nearly two days ago, is not enough as the part "adds missing militants" gives the view that this is a fact.


 * A comparable example would be if, lets say, those had said all those children had died in one powerful strike: "UNICEF and the Gaza Health Ministry reported that from 8 July to 2 August, 296–315 Palestinian children died due to Israeli action in one powerful strike". In that case, "what they say are" would be needed before that allegation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment the article says "ITIC reported cases where children and teenagers served as militants, as well as cases where ages of casualties reported by GHM were falsified, with child militants listed as adults and adults listed as children." ITIC reported cases (A) as well as cases (B). I think the word 'cases' before B makes it clear that it's still part of the ITIC's report. Would adding the word 'allegedly' satisfy you ? "ITIC reported cases where children and teenagers served as militants, as well as cases where ages of casualties reported by GHM were allegedly falsified" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, "allegedly" would work. I wasn't sure first if that wouldn't make it unclear in the way you mean the wording I used were. But now I think it work. --IRISZOOM (talk)

Edit about blockade
This edit is not "clarifying", it is selectively quoting one particular clause of one particular report. See the last paragraph of the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip. The naval blockade is only one part of the blockade, and only one report declared that legal. It is totally undue to put one data point in the article like this. This issue of the blockade has been discussed many times on the talk page before. This statement should be removed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Naval/air blockade is indeed a blockade. There is no blockade on land, there are borders with Israel and Egypt and both manage their own borders however they see fit. Doesn't your country control its borders ? Do you consider it a blockade of the neighbors ?
 * Israel obviously considers the blockade legal (or at least necessary). One important report by the UN declared that it is legal. Many ("overwhelming majority") NGOs disputed this opinion. Why represent only one point of view and not both ? WarKosign (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That Israeli considers the blockade necessary is already mentioned: there is no suppression of one point of view. This particular tidbit is simply taking one data point out of the whole saga of the legality of the blockade. It is not just NGOs which disputed this opinion, it is a five member UN panel of international law experets who did this. And there is the Goldstone report separately and the Red Cross and so on. Read the last paragraph of the other article I quoted. Adding this tidbit by itself is simply false balance. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with KingsIndian. The Palmer report is a WP:DUE issue. There is almost unanimous international consensus regarding the illegality of the blockade. Moreover, the statement "[a] United Nations commission ruled that the blockade was "both legal and appropriate" misrepresents the report. It only refers to the naval blockade; not the blockade as a whole, and the report itself repeatedly emphasizes the humanitarian issue in Gaza. The section on the blockade now sounds as though there's some sort of international debate as to whether or not the blockade is legal and/or appropriate, when in reality, there simply is not. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the report indeed only meant the naval part of the blockade. Is there any objection to writing 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".' ? Another option is to keep the question of legality of the blockade out of this article and leave the discussion where it belongs, that is in the article dealing with it. WarKosign (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not 'for the sake of argument'. The report itself is available online . And yes, you can do that for now(In fact,that's what I'll do), but there's still the WP:DUE issue. Regarding mentioning the legality of the blockade, that needs to stay. That's one of the reasons we have the 'background' section: so readers can understand the broader context of the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the blockade itself is highly relevant. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Existence of the blockade is highly relevant, legality of it is less so. If the whole international community was supporting the blockade, would it make Hamas any less inclined to look for ways to break it and smuggle rockets or materials to build rockets?
 * The report says that the naval blockade was legal. It also says that it considered it separately from the land crossing policies that were in place before the naval blockade. It does not specifically say that there is any other kind of blockade that is illegal. "For the sake of argument" meant - let's not argue (now) if the report saying that the naval blockade is legal should or should not be understood as saying that land and air movement restrictions are legal or illegal. WarKosign (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I can agree with that. You can remove all references to its legality. Though that would also mean removing Israel's legal argument ("Israel maintains that the blockade is legal") JDiala (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? No, the legality of the blockade should not be removed. This is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. What is the rationale for removing it? The UN specifically quoted the legality of the blockade here and the EU has made statements about it too, among many others. The discussion here is not whether the legality should be included or not. If you wish to open a discussion on that, use a separate section, so that people are not confused. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also prefer to have a few sentences discussing legality of the blockade, including one - such as the one I wrote above - for Palmer report. WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss the legality in more detail, I suggest copying the entire last paragraph of the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to removing it, WarKosign brought it up, but the rationale would be the fact that that the background is meant to be just that: a background, or a general overview of the situation in Gaza and Israel prior to the launch of the operation. Thus it could be argued that the inclusion of the various legal issues would be a more specialized and specific area of interest best suited for the actual article on the blockade. Regardless, if the legality is to be discussed, then it must follow WP:DUE and, if the Palmer report is to be included, it must be noted that it only refers to the naval blockade. A whole paragraph, like the one you mentioned, would be too much though. JDiala (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I see three options: I prefer #1 but any other option is also acceptable with me. Looks like Kingsindian opposes #2. Opinions ? Do we need an RfC on this ?WarKosign (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".'
 * 2) Removing legality discussion completely
 * 3) Copy/transclude the whole legality paragraph from the lead of the blockade article, which also mentions the Palmer report.
 * There is a fourth option: keep things as they are, which I support. I oppose #1 and #2. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, this option exists. I however object to it because of WP:NPOV. Anyone objecting to #3 ?WarKosign (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence says "the overwhelming consensus is...", which is clearly correct, as this discussion and elsewhere (this has been discussed multiple times) has shown. As for #3, it looks to me like JDiala is opposing it, though he can clarify. I only support #3 as a last resort. I prefer #4. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Palmer is DUE enough to be about third of the legality paragraph in the blockade article and mentioning it here would result in the same ratio (1 line out of 3-4), while inserting the whole legality paragraph would take 11-12 lines. WarKosign (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I unarchived this discussion to finish it.
 * Let's see again what the options are and who opposes what.
 * #1 - Add a mention Palmer's report saying that the naval blockade is "both legal and appropriate". Kingsindian seems to oppose it for reasons I do not understand. JDiala seems to be ok with it.
 * #2 - Remove any mention of legality. Kingsindian seems to disagree, I presume on the grounds of DUE, JDiala seems to agree if nothing else works.
 * #3 - Copy/transclude the whole legality section from the blockade article, including its mention of the Palmer's report. Kingsindian seems to agree to this (I do not understand how it is better than #1, please clarify), JDiala doesn't seem to oppose it, for me it is not best since it bloats this article but I can live with that.
 * #4 - Do not mention Palmer's report, leave other mentions of blockade (il)legality. I oppose to this on the grounds of DUE and POV.
 * If my summary is correct and nobody else gets involved, I will proceed with #3. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the way it's currently formatted is fine. And, evidently, KingsIndian supports that also. The Palmer Report is undue. You have to understand that there is almost universal consensus among international institutions and international law experts that the blockade is illegal. Mentioning a single report, which only focuses on the Naval blockade, and whose conclusions have been criticized by numerous scholars who regard the entire blockade to be collective punishment, is clearly WP:DUE. Option #3 is overkill. We would be devoting a full paragraph, half of the background section, discussing solely the legality of the blockade, even though that can be succinctly summed up in a single sentence. JDiala (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aid going into Gaza
Just noticed that there is no mention about the amount of aid Israel delivered to Gaza. "As far as aid going into the Strip, 1491 trucks of food went into Gaza, including 220 trucks with humanitarian aid, and 106 trucks carrying medical equipment." Granted this is before the conflict ended, so the numbers might be updated in a different source, but this is what I could immediately find. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also the matter of the field hospital Israel deployed at the Erez (?) crossing, and of course letting the wounded Gazan civilians into Israel. Not sure where this information should go, though. The article already mentions Hamas firing at Gazan civilians seeking help in Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the field hospital, here is Hamas preventing their civilians from accessing it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the operation timeline
Does anyone know how to fix this?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Math
73 mosques were destroyed, 205 partially destroyed - which means a third was not destroyed, only damaged Kosign, your math is crazy, and the edit is bizarre. It deliberately alters (tones down) the source on the basis of wild personal calculations. The source says 278 mosques were struck by airstrikes. 73 plus 205 =278. By changing 'destroyed' to 'damaged' you are implying there are 278x3= 834 mosques in Gaza. The one-third in the source refers to 73, 3x73 = 219, somewhat less than the 834 your edit creates, and much closer to the rough concept of a third. I.e., WP:OR and source distortion. The original figures are not sausage factory, but your mathematical gamesmanship is worse.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's be percise since we are dealing with numbers. The source does not say that 278 were struck by airstrikes. It makes 3 statements: Even assuming that there were only 278 mosques in Gaza and no mosques were left intact, 73 is not a third of (73+205) - it is close to a quarter. Hence the only way to reconcile the numbers is to assume that the word "destroyed" in the title is inclusive of both demolished and partially destroyed, and there were about 834 mosques in Gaza, out of which 205 were damaged, out of which and 73 were completely destroyed. As I wrote in my edit comment, partially destroyed is not the same as destroyed - it means damaged, perhaps heavily, and this was the change I made. QED. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * a third of all the the mosques in Gaza were destroyed
 * 73 were demolished
 * 205 were partially destroyed
 * Nishidani is arguing that 100% of all mosques in Gaza were damaged (versus none in the 2012 war), whereas his source says "The affected mosques represent one-third of Gaza's mosques." There is no indication these were all the result of Israeli airstrikes. I think it's obvious who is engaging in "wild personal calculation", as Nishidani so charitably summarized his opponent's edit. In any case, a subsequent article from the same publisher backtracked on the total figure, clarifying that "Protective Edge damaged 203 mosques, of which 73 were destroyed completely."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The section dealing with destruction of mosques should begin with their military use, which makes them legitimate military targets. 10:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As the outcry of the bombardment of mosques to schools to houses shows, not all can be said to be legitimate. The description should be as usual here, with the general description first and the claims by both parties about it.


 * One article before the Palestinians wrote their government report talks about 161 mosques destroyed: 41 completely and 120 partially. See Israel bombed 161 mosques in Gaza. There is no doubt that they blame Israel for it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, I think it should be clarified, as Haaretz also say, that the claim about the usage and numbers come from the Israeli military. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this make the attribution clear ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Partly as the other part about the usage is still there (that it's actual and routine). I don't know why you added that it was allegedly used for weapon storage when this is mentioned in the sentence before. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, I missed the repetition. I think this fixes it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but now TheTimesAreAChanging has changed it and also removed that the residents denied it but one other user have reverted that part. The claim about the mosques is sourced to IDF and is not attributed properly now because it gives the view that Hamas had in fact a military use of mosques and it was a routine one, as we have discussed about here above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Need more materials showing Palestinians casualties to keep neutrality of the article
The death tolls of the Palestinians were over 2000 among them hundreds of children, However this article just contains one image of an INJURED Palestinian child. Also, The photos intended to show Palestinians damages, are all long-shots that does not depict any human death or injuries. They only show derbies of the buildings and smokes, So they do not clear the situation properly. There are some Israelites who are badly terrified when heard a rocket alarm, and thanks to wikipedia, we can see their sufferings. On the other hand, There were some Palestinians who feared when they saw, with their own naked eyes, a missile is directed toward them and then, we know nothing more of them. It was sad but still true (at least relevant in this article) when some great guy said "All animals are equal, but some of them are more equal than the others". Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children. Thanks. Qudas (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians. To be representative, images of dead Hamas militants are needed first. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of 'keeping the article neutral.' The major overseer here is WarKosaign, most of whose edits are not neutral.
 * And again there are problems of arithmetic and English.


 * "Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children.'Qudas."
 * "Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians.WarKosign[[|undefined"
 * The word 'most' in English is not a synonym of 'minority'. The article reads:
 * "UN:OCHA:2,189 killed, of whom 1,486 are believed to be civilians (513 children, 323 boys and 190 girls,70% under 12), 269 women), 557 identified as militants"
 * IDF: 2,127 killed (55% civilians, 45% militants),[26] 250 captured (159 identified as militants


 * I.e. in WarKosign's interpretation 557 in the OCHA figures constitute 'most' of the 2,189 dead.
 * Even if we look at the IDF fiction(roughly 25% being militants vs roughly 70% of civilians), 45% is not 'most' of 100%. So what's going on? Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's go over the math again. According to ITIC (which is an up-to-date source that explains its methodology and doesn't use numbers provided by Hamas blindly), out of 2,157 causalities approximately 1,056 are militants, which constitutes the largest group. Of the remaining ~1100 civilians 513 (according to OCHA) constitute children, and the remaining ~600 are adult civilians. My bad, children are not the second largest group - they are the smallest.
 * If you take all the numbers from OCHA - 2189 total, out of which 146 are unknown. Out of the known 2043 they report 973 adult civilians, 557 militants and 513 children. Again, children are the smallest group. Even ignoring the evidence that some of these so called civilians and children were in fact militants, surely it is more DUE to represent the more numerous dead militants than the children. It won't help Hamas's cause as much, but what can you do - we are here to represent the facts, not to promote a specific agenda. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief, man. I guess editorial fatigue is at play here.
 * OCHA
 * 2,189
 * minus 146 =2,043 whose status is believed to be known
 * of these, 1,486 are believed to be civilians and 557 identified as militants
 * What you do is (a) elide the comment on civilians, reduce the whole analysis to children versus militants, and then state 'Most of the causalities were militants'!!! (the assumption being that all adult civilians killed aren't countable as civilians) Everybody can see the trick. It would be obvious to any child. You can't talk your way round the nonsense your selective manipulation of the data produced. Forget it. You have used the ITIC's numbers blindly and even there you make the wrong deductions.


 * The ITIC is a notoriously bad source for anything, its methodology is sheer nonsense. It's a propaganda pipeline, according to Yossi Melman Its methods are duplicated by no neutral internationally recognised body, and your deductions from it are totally screwed up in any case. ('The opponents argue that Military Intelligence should not be connected to a propaganda body, at the expense of objective and ideologically unbiased professional analysis'). That is what many intelligence experts in israel think of the ITIC. It probably shouldn't even be used on this page, given it has no value officially, but is a private propaganda body staffed by the IDF's oldboy network. It is so imcompetent that even a month after the end of hostilities it still can't figure out the identities of 60% of the dead, and even juggling its own data, can only come up with a statistically silly 51% civilian, 49% militant (vs OCHA 73% vs.27% ratio), which means, again, you are stating 49% is more than 51%. So, if you screw up as you have here and elsewhere, just leave it at that, and don't waste time trying to justify the error. It sits badly with the declaration that


 * 'we are here to represent the facts, not to promote a specific agenda.'
 * There is no trace in your editing history on this article that this intent has been operative. Throughout, the page has been worked to provide overwhelming weight to one POV, Israel/IDF.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right that 'most' is not the correct term here. I meant "militants are (arguably) the largest group, with adult civilains contending it for the first or the second place, and the children are the smallest group, therefore children do not need undue representation.
 * ITIC may not be the best source, but it's no worse than the Hamas-controlled health ministry, which so far:
 * reported duplicate names to increase the number of casualties
 * misrepresented the ages of the militants to hide the facts that some "children" were fighting
 * routinely reported militants as civilians
 * did not mention a single victum of hamas's rockets failures or executions
 * So sure, ITIC has an agenda - but so far it was not caught lying to promote the agenda, so it is far more reliable than GHM.
 * Apropos promoting an agenda - it is quite clear to see the pattern in your edits, there is one very specific agenda that you are promoting. My goal here is making this article NPOV. Many editors keep adding to this POV mess, and I try my best to correct it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please learn elementary set theory and elementary school math. Militants are not the largest group. (Adult) Civilians are the largest group. Repetition of your inability to see the obvious is no argument.
 * I don't know why you are obsessed with Hamas. I no more trust Hamas handouts than I do that of the ITIC or the IDF. Hamas is neither more or less reliable than the latter two agencies: the mendacity of the IDF official handouts day by day is something of a joke among reporters and analysts. Both Hamas and the IDF are interested parties, and I don't take anything seriously with regard to statistics other than what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, B'tselem, or the various UN agencies report. As to agenda pushing, in the war Israel waged, 2187 Palestinians were killed, of which roughly 1,500 were civilians and 600 soldiers, and complaints were made of the methods used by the IDF. These are covered by 11,432 characters. In the war Hamas waged in which 6 civilians died and 66 soldiers, complaints were made of the methods used and we devote a third more space to this, 18,549 characters. That is the result also of your dedication to doing your 'best' to achieve NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It took you a few tries, but looks like you finally understood my math. As I said, children are the smallest group, therefore they do not need undue representation with pictures. It is arguable whether adult civilians are the militants are the largest group, and it's curious how you claim to distrust both Hamas and IDF, but insist on using Hamas's numbers. In the same way, your claims of distrusting Hamas do not go well with your insistence to automatically blame IDF for the death of Hamas's human shields and their other victims. The war Hamas waged killed 1000 to 1500 Gazan and 6 Israeli civilians. Hamas had many chances to accept a ceasefire and avoid most of the bloodshed but chose not to. You admit using only organizations that support Hamas's propaganda (HRW, amnesty, b'tselem) as your "only" data source, and the result shows. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what you are saying is obtuse, whatever your, I have no reasonj to doubt it, sincerity. If you cannot parse the simple meaning of the following, you have deep problems in understanding elementary logic.
 * If of the set 2,189 killed
 * Subset (a) 1,486 are considered civilians
 * Subset (b)557 are defined as militants.
 * it follows that the constituents of (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive, and added together =2043
 * The difference between the set total (2,189) and the sum of subsets (a) and (b) is 2,189-2043=146
 * In OCHA that difference is explained as 'the identity or status of 146 is still being verified.'
 * Therefore, on these statistics it is not arguable whether adult civilians are (sic = or) the militants are the largest group, except if you don't understand simple addition and subtraction.
 * The number of adults who are deemed not militants in OCHA's figures are 1,486 - 513 children=973
 * The number of male civilian adults is obtained by 973-269 =704
 * The number of children and women killed under the banner of 'purity of arms' was 513 children+ 269 women = 782
 * Thus your original claim that 'Most of the causalities were militants (557 militants) is sheer crap.
 * Since 'most of the casualties were civilians (children, men and women)1,486
 * Since '557 militants' is less than the number of women and children 782
 * Since the number of militants (557) is less than the number of male adult civilians 704.


 * BSince far more women and children were killed (782) than militants (557), the original point raised regarded photographic representation of the realities of the war.
 * There are 22/24 photos
 * 14/16 deal with Israel
 * 1 Iron Dome in action; (defensive warfare)
 * I of Israeli artillery in action (offensive warfare)
 * 2 Sderot photos+ Yehud house destroyed: (targeted civilian infrastructure =3)
 * 3 of kidnapped teenagers; (innocent victims prewar) (can be counted as 1 perhaps)
 * 2 shelter/shelter sign (shelter)
 * I Israeli playground bombed;(school)
 * 1 kindergarten with children sheltering (school)
 * I pro-Israel demo; (international support for Israel)
 * I Israel demo against the war (Israeli democratic criticism of war).
 * I religious banner in support of war;
 * 1 IDF soldier examining a tunnel (discovering enemy means of attacking Israel)


 * 8 deal with Palestine
 * 1 Gaza home bombed
 * 1 West Bank street after IDF raid (nothing to do with Operat5ive Protective Edge)
 * I wounded man on a stretcher
 * Ruins of an area in Beit Hanoun
 * Shaymaa al-Masri wounded Palestinian 5 year old
 * pro-Palestinian demo (international support for Palestine)
 * People and a bulldozer in Bit Hanoun (ceasefire photo)
 * Destroyed ambulance (ceasefire photo, ambulances are civilian vehicles)


 * So, chief, you have a gross photo imbalance with 14/16 vs 8 in Israel's favour. In infrastructure representation, Israel boasts of highly specific individual sites, the Sderot meme is highlighted, and schools and children/youths are given pride of place. All photos of damage to Gaza are distance shots and area-generic, no schools, and just one piece of civilian infrastructure, and one child casualty. One photo has nothing to do with the Gaza Strip, and therefore the actual representations of the Palestinian side of the war =7 photos, of which I shows a victim.
 * One more example of why you, and everyone else involved so far in this article, myself included, should resign and let an independent, neutral third party copywriter of experience rework it. The footnotes are mostly replicative nonsense, the weighing absurd, the photo manipulation egregiously manipulative etc.etc. it's a disgrace.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "majority" was a wrong term. According to ITIC and IDFs data militants are the single largest group, while according to GHM or OCHA militants are the second largest. According to all the sources the children (not children+women) are the smallest group, as I wrote repeatedly.

It was already argued that the picture of the artillery serves to promote the Hamas POV: Israel is an agressor. If you think otherwise, let's put multiple pictures of Quasam, Grad, M-302, M-75 rockets to promote Hamas POV. Your count missed maps - there are 3 maps showing the damage/closure in Gaza, and only 2 maps showing the rocket launch sites and the rocket ranges. Similarly, the pro-Hamas demostration photo hardly serves to promote Israeli POV - otherwise let's replace it with a parallel photo in Gaza (of Hamas about to execute the protesters, I suppose). As I count, there are 14/16 vs 13 images, the skew is recent and originates from the picture(s) of the kidnapped teenagers being added to the timeline article. Let's see what would be the best way to balance it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. You refuse to understand the point, or thed data. I gather there's a fatigue factor here - i dislike speaking about 'disingenuousness'. Consider taking a break, because this arguing against the obvious is also introducing serious misrepresentations.
 * "(a)Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians. To be representative, images of dead Hamas militants are needed first.WarKosign 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)"
 * Here you stated as a fact what is an opinion
 * "(b)'According to ITIC and IDFs data militants are the single largest group, while according to GHM or OCHA militants are the second largest.'"
 * I.e. your initial assertion of a 'fact' turns out to be just an echo chamber for what is the POV of the ITIC and, you add incorrectly, the IDF. Your statement of the facts of the case is just a representation of one party's point of view. As an editor, you are obliged to keep distinct your personal beliefs from the precise paraphrase of what sources, from each relevant POV, state.
 * Secondly, you even get Israel's official POV wrong. The IDF figures do not state that militants are the single largest group.
 * IDF2,127 killed (55% civilians, 45% militants). Fa Chrissake, 45% does not represent the single largest group. You can twist and turn and spin and backflip figures all you like, but the distinction is betwen civilian versus militant groups, and the latter are, in the IDF's own figures, the minority group. To try and tweak one's way around this by breaking 'civilians' down into 'children, women, adult males' etc., doesn't alter their collective status of civilians. So drop it, this would be infantile were it not utterly ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with Nishidani and Qudas. I too have noted a serious POV issue with the images. Aside from the casualties issue, why is a sculpture built from Hamas rocket debris needed? It's completely extraneous and irrelevant. The images misrepresent the nature of the conflict, of which the Gazans, mostly civilians, have been, by quite a large degree, the main victims of. We have an image of the three kidnapped and murdered teenagers, yet no mention of the several Palestinians who were killed in the ensuing operation by the IDF, and Mohammed Abu Khdeir, who was savagely burned alive in the revenge killing. There are a total of eight images relating to the "rocket" fire, even though the rockets have only killed a total 6 civilians during the operation and have caused negligible harm to Israel. There's also an image of a tunnel. The Israeli attack on Gaza, however, is remarkably hardly shown, even though it has resulted in 2000+ deaths; there's only two images showcasing the destruction of Gaza, and only two images of Gazan casualties. This is absurd. The war was exceedingly disproportionate, and by far the main "battleground"(though there were never battles, just aerial bombardment) was Gaza. The images must reflect this. JDiala (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This creates a false balance. It's a similiar POV issue with Mahmoud Abbas' statements here, when he says something negative about Hamas in this war, it's added, but nothing about what he speaks mostly about, namely Israeli actions in this war. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Negligible harm? see 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans, the main airport in Israel was shut down for a few days. The economy of southern Israel was almost ruined and millions in the south and center heard sirens and ran to shelters many times a day. Also, of course there were ground battles, otherwise how were 60+ IDF soldiers killed. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Negligible' is comparative (compared to what has happened three times in 6 years, and most devastatingly this year, in the Gaza Strip). Disruption of a nice life style is one thing, massive death and the systematic destruction of a whole economy, sewage, electricity, water utilities, housing, agricultural production, with forseeable consequences for 20 years is another. Someone with a sore toe would be indelicate were (s)he to whinge about it to another person who has battled ravaging cancer for several years (at least, in normal human discourse this is understood by almost everyone.)

Ok, simple set theory. The universe of all Gazan casualties can partitioned into 3 complementing sets: militants, adult civilians, children civilians. The sources more or less agree on cardinality of the universe: ~2150 people. There is disagreement on cardinality of the group of militants, with different sources putting it between 643 (OCHA) and 1,056 (ITIC). Cardinality of the group of civilian children is given by OCHA as 513, therefore group of civilian adults numbers between 994 and 581.

ITIC: 1056 militants > 581 adults > 513 children OCHA: 994 adults > 643 militants > 513 children

Therefore, as I wrote so many times already, militants and adult civilians are in the first and second places (it's arguable which is which), with the group of civilian children unarguably being the smallest. It does not mean the children should not be represented, only that they should be represented proportionally to their number among other casualties.
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You essentially talking to yourself because I've stop listening. You are now arguing in bad faith. 'ITIC: 1056 militants' is an extrapolation, using ITIC 'unique' (pseudo-)methodology) from the 49% of militants of 721 dead whose identities they claim to have established. They are so inept that whilst OCHA can identify 557 militants, ITIC can't get beyond identifying 354 militants!!!!!!!!!!!!, and can only nudge that figure up to the mythical 1056 by an exptrapolation based on a combination of guess-work and wishful thinking. You like it, fine, but such statistically crapulative gamesmanshit coming from that private corporation has no place on wikipedia. You might get a hearing from Professor Ratbaggy, but no one else who understands statistics and is tone-deaf to propaganda gamesmanship. As was noted, ITIC in intelligence circles in Israel is considered unreliable. (And drop the set theory. I already told you you are creating spurious set definitions (militants vs children, militants vs adults, militants vs women) to cancel what all sources denominate as the fundamental sets of the class of casualties namely militants vs non-militants, and the proportion are 27/723 (OCHA) or 45/55%, in each case, the majority of casualties are civilians. Don't reply. Because my toleration of nonsense threshold has long been breached.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "As was noted, ITIC in intelligence circles in Israel is considered unreliable." - Nishidani
 * It's only your and Yossi Melman private opinion and no more. Even Melman wrote about "several members of Malam and Military Intelligence" in his article. It's seems as he doesn't like that "the Arab Bank would stand trial for funding terror attacks in Israel". :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I will soon begin a new section to discuss what the main conflicting POVs actually are and how they should be represented neutrally. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are complicating this simple issue. Most of the casualties were civilians. What you're trying to do is break down the civilian casualties into smaller subsets[ie "child" civilians; "adult" civilians], and then compare each of the subsets to the whole set of militant casualties. That's silly. 55% of the casualties were civilians, thus at least half, or slightly more than half, of the images should be focused on the civilians. It's quite simple. If you want to be mathematical about it, around 32 Palestinians died for every Israeli. And around 233 Palestinian civilians died for every Israeli civilian. Trying to create a false balance by focusing on the "rockets" rather than the war in Gaza itself is simply disingenuous and unequivocally POV. Regarding the neglibility of Israeli suffering, running to shelters after hearing sirens, airport flight bans, and minor economic problems in Southern Israel are inconveniences. They are negligible relative to what the Gazans went through, many of whom were killed or have lost their entire families. JDiala (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - according to all the sources there are more civilians than militants among the casualties and it should be represented in a balanced way. This section was opened by Quadas writing "Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children", and my reply was that Gazan children are not the largest group of the casualties, with militants (arguably) being larger, therefore the children do not need special treatment. Some editors keep arguing against this obvious and simple fact and admit refusing to listen. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily have to be children, in my opinion. I just have an issue with, in general, how the images are so focused on the Hamas "rockets" and less focused on Gaza - which was where most of the violence occurred. JDiala (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC at Google Scholar
Simply to remind (copy from Nishidani's rollback - 20:20, 19 October 2014 & addition to my post of 08:31, 20 October 2014 above) --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il

Revert

 * How is this relevant? And why do you continue to use non-RS like Richard Silverstein's blog?
 * This edit summary is (a) accompanied by no comment on the talk page.
 * (b) It is answered by the article itself, which uses blogs 14 times, most of them being pro-war Israeli sources, and including several references to the idf.blog, which, by the record, has less reliability than Richard Silverstein.
 * (c) Challenging Richard Silverstein as not RS (to be demonstrated) for his own widely read opinions is silly but
 * (d) the edit summary is a pretext, because Plot Spoiler reverted not only my reference to Silverstein, but also to Uri Avnery (former Knesset member, writer and distinguished commentator) and Gideon Levy (a highly notable Israeli journalist), the last of whom was writing for Haaretz, a mainstream Israeli newspaper. That Uri Avnery posted his comments on Counterpunch is neither here nor there. His views are quoted for what he thinks, not what Counterpunch proposes.
 * As to the relevance, the page has made intensive efforts to showcase Israel's thesis, all over the world press, that there is something unusual in Hamas having weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals, kindergartens etc. We have given numerous sources stating this thesis. Per WP:NPOV it is perfectly fair to present the opposite opinion, one indeed widely known in Israel, i.e., that the IDF rhetoric contradicts the history of the IDF, since in its early manifestations as the Palmach/Haganah, in a similar struggle for independence, it used all of these civilian facilities to hide its weaponry from the British.
 * The edit therefore was more than legitimate. It is obligatory, and Plot Spoiler's revert is in line with his long history of reverting me, and many others, on pretextual grounds (WP:RS) which (as in his simultaneous elision of Haaretz) are belied by what he he actually does, which is rather explained by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are ample historic precedents of military use of civilian facilities, including by the founders of the modern State of Israel. If you want to be picky, they were not violating the Geneva convention since the principle of distinction was only added by Protocol I in 1977. Even if they were - they were risking exposing the civilian facilities to legitimate military response. There are many other cases worldwide, and all of them are WP:UNDUE here, since they are different cases. They are all cases of guerrilla warfare, and there is no reason to list other, unrelated cases here. What does this paragraph serve to say ? "Hamas doing something wrong is OK because ~70 years ago Israel did something similar" ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comparing something that Jews might have done almost 100 years to what Hamas is doing now is completely irrelevant. If that was considered relevant, these kind of articles would be absolutely filled with tu quoque arguments. Just about no one from that time is alive anymore and they are certainly not in charge. It would be like saying Germany shouldn't be allowed to condemn genocides happening today because Germany committed genocide 75+ years ago. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are quoting opinion pieces comparing events during OPE to historic precedents, why not this or similar ones which compare Hamas rocket attacks to The Blitz ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, Knightmare.That 3 commentators make the same point in challenging the IDF/Israeli version of rockets signifies that one POV needs balancing by its contrary. Both of your comments consist of second-guessing or disputing RS, and neither of you have the right to do that. WP:Undue has nothing to do with this, WP:NPOV has everything to do with it. Please think before bantering (Cf.Protocol I in 1977. Look up rule 25 (1907) of the Hague conventions on rules of land warfare and the concept of proportionality, certainly applicable to the artillery bombing of Rafah, Khuza'a and Shuja'iyya. We have no right to make such points, because this is challenging RS on the grounds one dislikes the point of view they represent).
 * I have no problems with citing the hyperbole likening the Blitz to Hamas (Joseph Klein), or what Hamas did in grazing Sderot with several rockets to the Rape of Nanking, which elicited the just response of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Seth Lipsky). I gave a detailed analysis of what is incorrect in Plot Spoiler's functional role here as acting to revert things without explanation on the talk page, or recourse to wiki rules. He excised an article in Haaretz, which is indisputably RS, as is Uri Avnery, adducing the fact that Richard Silverstein's identical remark comes from a well-known blog, (and yet the article cites many pro-Israeli blogs). So please address the issues and try to avoid irrelevant opinions that express your personal views about history.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about RS, only about UNDUE. There are many comparisons that can (and surely will) be made between OPE and historical events, more and less justified, by more and less notable sources. They are made in reaction to the conflict, so if they are prominent enough they may deserve a mention in the reactions article. What is their purpose here ? Are they providing new information on some event during the conflict that is missing otherwise ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a POV be undue, if the other POV is amply represented, without a balancing comment? The absence of a balancing statement makes the excessive detail on one side's POV, itself, undue. That's obvious. Charges are made about Hamas using civilian facilities for weapons all over the page, and therefore it is obligatory to note that Israeli critics themselves respond to this by noting that the same thing claimed of Hamas, has precedents in Israel's comparable war for independence, in comments bad directly with regard to these Israeli governmenbt talking points. Refuse the balance, and you violate NPOV by allowing only one version of things on the page. It's obvious.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What other POV is amply represented ? That the Jewish settler's use of guerilla tactics in the land of Israel was not a violation of any law ? It is not a different POV, it is simply irrelevant, just like comparing Hamas's rockets to the blitz. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The whole article on the use of civilian infrastructures by Hamas to store weaponry is tghe 'other POV'. The balancing POV is that which notes this same practice formed an integral part of the Yishuv's tactics in fighting for an independent state of Israel. The point is widely noted in Israel, and it represents a balancing perspective to the one highlighted. Israel's case against Hamas is that it uses civilian infrastructure in an armed revolt: Israel's independence was based on using civilian infrastructure in an armed revolt. The analogy is local, historical and an integral part of the debate. To suppress it is to spin one version of a complex narrative as the only story in town. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an "integral part of the debate". It happened almost 100 years ago and it's has no impact on the current situation. You're essentially making a tu quoque argument. So what if Jews might have hid weapons in civilian homes almost 100 years ago? How does that make what Hamas is doing now any less wrong? Like I said, it's like saying that Germany shouldn't be allowed to condemn genocides today because they committed genocide 75+ years ago. If you want to dig up old events, why not make the argument that Jews had a right to return back to the land since they originated there? The Arabs were the ones who conquered the land in the 7th century. This is basically the slippery slope you are going down. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading when I read the first sentence:
 * 'It (IDF hiding weaponry in synagogues, in women's clothes, under childrened, in kindergartens etc) almost 100 years ago). 1947 was 67 years ago. When editors collapse figures for rhetorical effect to skew arguments one doesn't take them seriously. When editors 'historicize' as something a century old, remarks made recently, over the past two months, then it is pointless taking them seriously.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Haganah and other groups in pre-Israel did not hide thousands of rockets and mortars to fire at British civilians and British territory to protest the Mandate authorities. So no, not really similar. Also, claims that Hamas actions are all about "seeking independence" is an opinion, they never said such thing, at most they speak about a long ceasefire (unless, of course, if to radical-left ears replacing all of Israel with an Islamic state sounds like independence). Yuvn86 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply to remind about British reaction in 1940th: British Troops Invade Tel Aviv in Hunt for Floggers; Jew Doomed for Attack on Police Hq --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So? Take it up with Levy, Avnery, Silverstein and Ross Singer. Complain to Nir Mann (Nir Mann, 'Does the presence of the IDF's HQ in Tel Aviv endanger the city's population?,' Haaretz 9 June 2012) for documenting what has been, in these Israeli polemics over the last two months, the talking point about why the IDF has fought for several decades to keep the Kirya base, its headquarters, in the heart of Tel Aviv, where, in a future war, its presence there will mean exposing the civilian population to the threat of heavy casualties. The IDF makes a huge talking point of Hamas placing military installation in civilian areas, while doing exactly that in Tel Aviv, and Israeli critics rightly make the comparison. Mention the IDF's hot air as thoroughly as we do, and we are obliged to note what these critics see as a contradiction in principle.
 * As editors we can talk all we like about our personal opinions as to the accuracy of RS. But in the RS, this point is made, and the article must reflect it like it or not. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what's the criteria for inclusion ? Anything that anyone said in relation to OPE should be represented here ? Or only undue analysis that happens to match your personal opinions ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One analyses concretely. If a major section deals with IDF/Israeli accusations of Hamas's dual civilian/military use or military installations in civilian areas, it is obvious per NPOV that the counter-claim by critics merits a mention, i.e., that Israel did, and in the case of Kirya still does, the same thing. I donb't know of an article where a hostile claim about a party or person does not document the responses to the claim. It is absolutely normative to do this. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, you have failed to explain what Jews possibly did pre-Israel has to do with anything today. You so far have failed to answer this question: Is Germany not allowed to condemn genocides today because they committed genocide 75+ years ago (roughly around the same time this possibly happened)? You are using a tu quoque fallacy to justify including this into the article, possibly to downplay the fact that what Hamas is doing now is wrong or to discredit the fact that they are doing it. The bit of info in this article that says Israel has military installations near civilian areas is already categorized as possible undue weight. This issue is no different, and is actually even worse since at least the bit of info in the article is talking about the present day while this issue is before Israel was even created. Just because people on news sites or blogs mention it doesn't mean it's relevant or significant enough to be included in this article. As I said, all this is, is a tu quoque fallacy and is quite childish. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you take the trouble to note that I am not mentioning the analogy, but RS are. I'm under no obligation to explain, and then be accused of 'failing to explain' why Uri Avnery, Ross Singer, Richard Silverstein, Gideon Levy and many others discuss this analogy. It is part of an Israeli polemic, and obviously challenges the government line. It is notable, balances the official line, and its authors are Israelis. What else is required?Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are under no obligation to answer the question, but you look bad for not doing so. Like I said, people can talk about it on news sites and blogs, but it has no relevance with what is happening today. You (and the people you are referencing) are saying two wrongs make a right. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Category about terror attacks
you inserted the category Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups but it's about specific terror attacks, not a whole conflict like this one. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Each rocket fired indiscriminately into general population is an act of terror. Over 4,500 such acts of terror were committed, which makes this conflict one of the biggest terror attempts in the human history. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't address my point. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I did - the whole conflict/war/operation was one big act of terror, consisting of thousands of attacks. Would you rather add a separate article for every rocket fired and add them to the category instead ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant articles are already categorized, see Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups. 14 articles on Palestinian rocket attacks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the word "terror" or "terrorism" cannot be used to describe Palestinian rocket attacks (except when quoting others) per WP:NPOV and WP:WTW JDiala (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I see - can: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

memo to restore
this revert. With the edit summary ‘RV Nishidani--Random blog by assistant professor tentatively recounting a "very convoluted" Arab media report that also mentions Hamas' repeated public statements rocket fire would continue until the end of the blockade is undue.’

TheTimesAreAChanging

Please examine edits before eliding them on spurious grounds.
 * Allison Hodgkins (PhD, 2010) is an Assistant Professor of International Security and Conflict Management at the American University of Cairo, and is a graduate of one of the most prestigious schools worldwide for international relations (The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy)
 * She summarized Asmaa al-Ghoul, 'Gaza’s armed factions coordinate response to Israeli attacks,' Al-Monitor 7 Jul 2014
 * Al-Monitor is an RS source.
 * Rather than use the primary source, I used Allison Hodgkins' summary of the text. It is not important where a professional area specialist publishes her work (a blog or otherwise. Protest the blog, and one can use the primary source Al-Monitor, but that is not helpful to readers, whereas Allison Hodgkins's paraphrase is. I prefer Hodgkins. And by the way the article also says that 'The rockets fired from Gaza in recent days have largely been the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which is what Nathan Thrall and many others are alluding to, and which many of you found objectionable.
 * Dislike of a scholar's summary of a text, which she can access also in Arabic as well as other sources in her remarks, is not a prerogative of wiki editors. She is an expert on the region, which neither you nor I are.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues yet to be dealt with.

 * Complaints about Israel section runs to 11,432 characters. Complaints about Hamas section runs to 18,549 characters. Why the imbalance?

There are 22/24 photos
 * Photo imbalance

14/16 deal with Israel 1 Iron Dome in action; (defensive warfare) I of Israeli artillery in action (offensive warfare) 2 Sderot photos+ Yehud house destroyed: (targeted civilian infrastructure =3) 3 of kidnapped teenagers; (innocent victims prewar) (can be counted as 1 perhaps) 2 shelter/shelter sign (shelter) I Israeli playground bombed;(school) 1 kindergarten with children sheltering (school) I pro-Israel demo; (international support for Israel) I Israel demo against the war (Israeli democratic criticism of war). I religious banner in support of war; 1 IDF soldier examining a tunnel (discovering enemy means of attacking Israel)

8 deal with Palestine 1 Gaza home bombed 1 West Bank street after IDF raid (nothing to do with Operat5ive Protective Edge) I wounded man on a stretcher Ruins of an area in Beit Hanoun Shaymaa al-Masri wounded Palestinian 5 year old pro-Palestinian demo (international support for Palestine) People and a bulldozer in Bit Hanoun (ceasefire photo) Destroyed ambulance (ceasefire photo, ambulances are civilian vehicles)

Either parity, in which case we need at least 6 more photos of Gazan situations thematically parallel to those highlighted here, or we reduce the Israeli photos by that number.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot the maps, there are 4 maps of Gaza and one of Israel. Let's remove Israeli artillery in action, demonstration against the war and replace the photo of a soldier examining the tunnel with one without a soldier but with weapons found in the tunnel (Hamas war technology). Then we'll have 12/14 images dealing with Israel and 13 dealing with Palestinians. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a picture taken in Gaza that we can add to the article to somewhat fix the POV. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have three photos of Sderot and Yehud (Israeli sites attacked) and at least two of schools with the implication of children being targeted, plus one of children in a photo of people running to a shelter. That's fine, but the same thematic elements from the Palestinian side are required. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By my rough estimate, about 25% of the material in "Violations by Israel" defends Israel or blames Hamas, while about one-third of the material in "Violations by Hamas" defends Hamas or blames Israel.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what's the result ? How much of the whole "alleged violations" section is dedicated to blaming side A + defending side B, vs the opposite ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The approach that Kingsindian and I took was to make sure the text was accompanied by relevant images, so when the prose is balanced so will be the images (more or less), but let's see which pictures have no thematic equivalents:
 * Infobox - Kwara house,iron dome in action. I think they balance - without ID there would be significantly more destroyed houses and families in Israel.
 * Background/violations - map of blockade on gaza, sculpture in sderot representing continued rocket fire. Both represent alleged violations by each side.
 * Immediate events - fire on a street in ramallah, fire in a factory of sderot. Both represent violent and fiery events during OBK.


 * Transcluded operation timeline overview - for some reason the section is missing now, but it contains the following: kidnapped teenages, wounded/dead person in Shuja'iyya, Ashkelon residents running to shelter, map of attacked sites in Gaza + map of launch sites in Gaza - also balanced. Image of playground that had rocket shards fall on
 * (*) 2 unbalanced pictures for Israeli side. An image of Mohammed Abu Khdeir could be juxtaposed with the Israeli teenagers, if it's available. So far his own article even in Arabic only has a mourning tent. Playground is redundant, even though I took this picture myself.


 * Impact on gaza residents - map of damage, ruins in beit hanoun, image of Shaymaa (that for some reason doesn't show on my computer - do others see this problem as well ?) 3 images representing physical destruction of homes and injury.
 * Impact on Israeli residents - picture of children in a kindergarten (representing alarms disrupting life, a source that is probably not reliable enough to use summed up the alarms to be about 90 per day on average, with most of them concentrating in the south. I took the image of the shelter sign in TLV airport to represent the banned flights - it's hard to depict planes not flying.
 * (*) 2 vs 3 Impact images, 1 more for the Palestinian side. I think it's fair, considering the life in Gaza was disrupted far more. A picture of a destroyed mosque could be in order near the paragraph dealing with their destruction and military use.


 * International Reactions - protests, 1 for 1. can't be more balanced.
 * Reactions in Gaza - no images. Are there any images that can be used here ?
 * Reactions in Israel - 1 protest against, 1 sign for. If you don't like religious subtext, there are several other images available.
 * Alleged violations - one image of destruction for "destruction of homes by Israel". Another with ambulance for "medical facilities and personel" which discusses both allegation of their military use and their unlawful attacks. The image serves to illustrate both. One image of destroyed house in Yehud in "rocket attacks on Israeli civilians". 3 Images, 1.5 for each side.
 * Military: 1 map depicting ranges of rockets fired from Gaza, one image of attack tunnel. One image of M109. If anything, Israel is underrepresented here. Some images of quasam rockets ready on a launch stand as well as more Israeli weaponry would be in order if this section grows.


 * It looks to me more or less balanced, and when it's not I suggested how to fix it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

restored compare source and paraphrase
Text Meshaal, who has headed Hamas' exiled political wing since 2004, denied being involved in the "details" of Hamas "military issues", but "justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands." Source He called those charges "lies" and disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. '''"I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in." As reported by Yahoo News on Friday, Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands.''' "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians." Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A disclaimer about knowing anything about the kidnapping operation in advance of its execution is here spun to be a denial of involvement in the details. Clever in a stupid sort of way.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you like it changed? JDiala (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Khalid Meshaal acknowledged that Hamas members were responsible but stated that its political leaders had no prior knowledge of the abduction, were not involved in military details and learnt of it through the ensuing Israeli investigations. While Hamas was opposed to targeting civilians, he understood that Palestinians frustrated with oppression were exercising a legitimate right of resistance against the occupation by undertaking such operations. 'Hamas:We wouldn't target civilians if we had better weapons,' Haaretz 23 August 2014/.'"
 * The point is, a denial of being involved in 'operational details' is not a disavowel, which Mershaal made, of knowledge of the operation. A leader can give the go-ahead for an operation and leave the details to his field agents or tacticians. The Haaretz paraphrase is much clearer on this.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The current summary is fine: "Meshaal, who has headed Hamas' exiled political wing since 2004, denied being involved in the "details" of Hamas "military issues", and stated that Hamas leadership was not aware of the kidnappings in advance, but "justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands." After all, his denial is not unique, and if he really had nothing to do with any other Hamas terror attacks in the group's history then he would be a mere figurehead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nishidani that the suggested wording is better because it makes it clearer that Meshaal denied involvement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Meshal makes statements that are detached from reality. "While Hamas was opposed to targeting civilians" is a poor choice of words. On the ground, Hamas TV says: "Our doctrine in fighting you (the Jews) is that we will totally exterminate you." And Hamas official spokesperson talks about "Our rockets are aimed at the Hebrews".."our missiles accurately target the homes of the Israelis" Meshal's exaggerations (e.g. "new holocaust, even worse than the holocaust perpetrated by Hitler." - doesn't he know the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people?) and media misdirection such as this one don't pass the straight face test. I'm not against changing '"details"' to 'operational details'. That would be better. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Nishidani. It ought to be altered. Also, Marciulionis, what Hamas purportedly says with regard to the rockets is irrelevant for this discussion. We are concerned solely with whether or not Meshal had knowledge of the kidnappings. Not whether or not Hamas is a moral organization; that is a separate issue. JDiala (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
I think it is agreed that this article suffers from POV balance issues. It is not agreed which way the balance is leaning too far, so it is not obvious how to correct it to everybody's satisfaction.

I think most of the core facts are agreed upon by any non-fringe source: It is important to describe these facts in a neutral manner. Most of the media (images + maps) should serve to illustrate the core facts and not the POV-prone disagreed facts/claims.
 * Dates
 * Nature of attacks (rockets, airstrikes, tunnels, mortar shells, artillery shells, etc)
 * Numbers of killed and wounded (not their distribution)
 * Chain of events leading to the conflict (mostly)
 * Impact on the residents

There are a few facts that are disputed:
 * was the kidnapping+murder of the teenagers ordered by Hamas leadership, or where they aware of it at the time
 * Khan Yunnis incident - were the militants killed by an airstrike or by their own triggering of explosives
 * percentage of the militants among the casualties and the cause of the death of the casualties.
 * alleged humanitarian law violations
 * probably some more that I'm missing

I think that by simply describing the core facts in a neutral manner we will already have a balanced article that describes most of the conflict. The disputed facts can be described in the lead in a neutral manner (3 teenagers were kidnapped by Hamas members, 7 militants died with Hamas blaming Israel, ~2200 people died, many of them civilians) and then the each of the conflicting versions described in more length in an appropriate section.

The tricky part in my opinion are claims made by each side and outsiders. It is trivial to prove that A made claim B. The trick is to ensure that the claims that are represented are relevant and balanced, and here I don't have a suggestion for a magic formula. 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I forgot writing the most important point: what are the two conflicting POVs ?
 * As can be seen above they are mostly not about the facts but about their interpretation.
 * One POV: Israel is oppressing the Gazan people. Hamas is fighting to free Gaza. Israel bombed their homes, schools and mosques with the intention to kill as many civilians as possible, while Hamas tried to stop it by using anything it its disposal. Israel dropped the equivalent of 20 nuclear bombs on the tiny and densely populated Gaza.
 * Another POV: Hamas is using the Gazan people as human shields and is fighting to destroy Israel. Israel bombed military targets often hidden in homes, schools and mosques avoiding killing civilians as much as possible, while Hamas fired at Israel anything in its disposal. Hamas's failing rockets and executions killed many of the civilians.
 * Do you agree in general that these are the two viewpoints taken to extreme ? Is there someone not agreeing that the truth must be somewhere between the two ? Is there another viewpoint that we should consider balancing ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a war, with two parties. Israel put out a narrative (official POV), Hamas also put forth its version. A large number of mainstream sources siphon, reflect, tweak or support the first narrative. A much smaller number of mainstream sources echo the Hamas or/and generic Palestinian narrative, often unthinkingly. I am interested in neither 'POV'. I think articles should be written from secondary sources that show independence from official narratives, which are basically things spun to legitimate one's actions. Your juxtaposition of POVs is inadequate because the sources I respect would say neither that Hamas is fighting to free Gaza, or that Israel's main purpose was to kill as many citizens as possible, nor that Hamas used the civilians as human shields and is fighting to 'destroy Israel' (patently/blatantly silly). Thrall, for one, would not endorse any of those caricatures. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the different POV issue, there is a simple way to solve that: attribute biased claims to people who make them. If Israel says Hamas uses human shields, or was planning a coup, say that Israel said that. If Hamas says that it had no knowledge of the murders, say that Hamas said that. That's why words like "allegedly" are crucial. Uncontroversial statements, like, for example, the date and time of the conflict, things like that, they can be said without attributing POV. A problem is that most NPOV organizations, like the UN, NGOs and Human Rights Organizations, also tend to have a pro-Palestinian bias, so thus naturally the article will also tend to that direction. And, by the time the UN Fact Finding Missions releases its report, the international law questions will be much more clear. Regardless, we shouldn't try and create a false balance, but only go by what the sources, reliable sources, say; sometimes, reality often isn't NPOV (see WP:VALID) JDiala (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that UN and NGOs are NPOV ? There are many NGOs with clear bias.
 * Correct attribution is critical, but it's not enough. For each POV statement there is the question whether it is DUE and how much room it deserves. Give significantly more room for statements with a particular bias and you have a POV problem. However, I don't see a clear objective way of telling what is balanced - it can't be a simple matter of counting words or characters because some statements may need more room to be expressed than others. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what is NPOV? Every source will, for this issue in particular because it's quite controversial, will be slightly partisan. Sources from respected and reliable NGOs and human rights organizations, and international governmental bodies like the UN, are what we should ideally go by. I don't think the due issue is quite complicated. The kidnapping/murder is represented satisfactorily in the immediate events section, giving due weight to the argument that Hamas did know and that they did not know, and also the operation which followed it. The human shields issue, which is also disputed, seems fine; it accurately represents both the Israeli argument and the Palestinian/NGO arguments. It's the same with the tunnels section, and the legality of the blockade which we have previously discussed and reached consensus on. Are their any specific WP:NPOV or WP:DUE complaints you have? I haven't read through the entire article, but I can't find any conspicuous, extreme cases of POV. Possibly the casualty statistics have a POV problem, but there is little we can due about that; all of the sources available are considered POV. The best solution, as done in "casualties and losses" section, is juxtaposition of every different available source. JDiala (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think facts, such as the casualties do not pose a big problem - represent each major take on the facts, and you're good. I began this section to discuss the proper way to represent opinions. There is a wide range of lengthy opinions with varied level of relevance to the article (which is also subjective). Ideally I would like to have a rule of thumb that sets a criteria for inclusion or omission of a statement: "You must be this tall to ride". Of course exceptions after a discussion here will be possible, but for majority of the article the criteria would make a clear cut. IMO the criteria can be based on notability, briefness, relevance. For example: The person or the organization making the statement must be proovably notable - for example Avi from Golani may be a very nice guy, but I do not think his opinion bears much weight. Perhaps only take people/organization that are notable enough to have a wikipedia article (that existed for at least N months) ? Briefness - each statements should be shorter than N words/lines, with total number of statements representing a side taking at most 120% of those dedicated to the opposite side in the same article section. I do not have an idea for any objective criteria for relevance at the moment. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, WarKosign. You've been editing for some time this page. Please don't trot the nonsense one has to ask newbies to guard against, like saying sources are NPOV. They are not, by definition. I did not say the UN or NGOs were NPOV. I said to get NPOV it is sufficient to give the UN and IDF figures impartially, since they are the major official sources of data.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * : Do I understand right and you by yourself think that Hamas not "used the civilians as human shields and is fighting to 'destroy Israel' (patently/blatantly silly)" (@Nishidani) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My Irish forebears defined us thus: an Irishman is like a mushroom: we're raised in the dark and thrive on bullshit. I'm beginning to see it's not limited to spud-chompers. I don't believe what newspapers recycle. I listen closely to what people like Yuval Diskin say, and have been saying, it all falls on deaf ears, since 2005. Hamas has for a decade has no other interest than securing a long-term truce with Israel. Everyone except wiki editors, and the usual journalist hacks, knows that.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So it was very interesting to learn smtng new about Irishmen, less about Diskin whose POV I already know as well as opinion of other experts, but as already :( usual I cannot find any answer to my question. Sorry. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yuval Diskin is not representative of the general opinion. Hamas's demands that you bothered to detail in the article can be summed up as "make it easier for us to finish killing you off later". If Hamas wanted to reach a real truce, they could begin with saying "under certain conditions we are OK with you breathing". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as 'general opinion' as Nietzsche remarked 130 years ago. Public or general opinion is what people disattentively watching TV and scanning newspapers get an impression of. In all countries, this is uninformed, vague, emotive and generally silly. In understanding history (as wikipedians should), one does not conduct an opinion poll, unless you want a dull predictable section on trivialities: one asks historians. In understanding why political decisions are made, one doesn't ask a bus driver for insight. One waits for insiders to leak 'the inside dope' which is far closer to the realities that the doped opinion. Your remark about Hamas's opinion being:'"make it easier for us to finish killing you off later" is popular pabulum for idiots. Please don't recycle it before editors familiar with the area, who will only be tempted to attribute to Israel the declared intention of keeping Palestinians suspended in formaldehyde, with just enough food to survive on for an indefinite period (Dov Weissglass), or that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, most widely respected rabbinical figure among Oriental and Sephardic Jews publicly advocated the genocide of Palestinians and indeed all Arab people (I have a large list of such Israeli declarations, so it's pointless trying to say there is something peculiar in the Hamas record). Anybody can play that game, which has a function in moulding public hysteria, not analysing history. All such quoting declares is what those who repeat it, embracing a moulded piece of hasbara, like to think. It makes a crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim of a demonically evil, ug, what is that wonderful Yiddish word?,nebechdicker . Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the silliest news story ever. 40% of Israelis accept Hamas's demands, yet the newspaper takes that to mean "almost no support". LOL! JDiala (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * this clarifies it: "Meanwhile 41% think Israel should respond positively to those Hamas demands that are still reasonable in terms of Israel’s national security." 41% thought that some of the demands (which in their opinion do not endanger Israel) can be met, leaving 1% to unconditionally accept the demands. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note:, Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation, MK Meir Shitrit explaining the matter. In respect to WP:ARBPIA, could you please remove the offensive text against the good people of the Israeli military and the needless use of Yiddish? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. here's an article about the Ovadyah quote. Once again, taken out of context (Note: Weissglass says nothing about food). Feel free to drop by my page so we can sort out which of the quotes is actually genuine and in proper context. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No-one actually believes the nonsense about the "dire humanitarian situation" in Gaza. You'd probably gain weight if you consumed 2,279 calories of food each day, not that that guideline was ever implemented. The lies about Israel are absolutely transparent. The far left oscillates between condemning the allegedly stunted growth of Gaza's children and using the exact same statistics to justify a Palestinian state: "In terms of indicators of early childhood nutrition, WB&G is an outstanding performer. Among children under the age of 5, only 11.5 percent suffer from stunting (low height for age) and a mere 1.4 percent from wasting (low weight for height). In the average middle income country, 3 out of 10 children are stunted, i.e. more than three times the figure for WB&G. Performance in terms of wasting incidence is even more compelling: one in 10 children in a middle income country suffers from wasting, i.e. the rate is 7 times lower in WB&G. Thus, judged by anthropometric outcomes, WB&G performs better than most other countries in the world, irrespective of income. Though this benchmarking exercise does have data availability limitations, it is important to note that the pool of countries in the sample includes a variety of middle income countries from the region, such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco -- and WB&G fares better than these in terms of early childhood nutrition indicators. In addition, overall incidence rates of stunting and wasting have been relatively stable over time." Likewise--even though Hamas also prevented Gazan civilians from heeding Israeli warnings with an official curfew enforced at gunpoint, and killed many dozens of Fatah members for their reluctance to die--the refrain that coercion is required to meet the definition of "human shield" is pure revisionism. Human Rights Watch, among others, literally changes their definition of human shields when Israel is involved. When it is (say) a US drone strike, merely using the presence of civilians to deter attack qualifies, even if no force is used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Except the entire world. I don't deny the validity of your sources, though the second one seems to be a blog/editorial thing. The first one even admits that "In a U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks last year, American diplomats quoted their Israeli colleagues as saying the blockade was meant to push the area's economy "to the brink of collapse." Furthermore, the idea that 2200 calories/person is enough ignores simple physiology; many Gazans are, I imagine, laborers, so per the Harris-Benedict equation they'd need more than 2200 calories. Also the idea every person will be fed 2200 calories/day assumes that the food will be evenly distributed; last time I checked, Gaza is not a communist society. Aside from all of that, to make an accurate conclusion on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, we have to look at the broader picture rather than individual, fringe studies. We must look for consensus among reliable sources. See WP:FRINGE. There's general consensus that the blockade has lead to various humanitarian issues. Here are sample sources. There are many more, I imagine, but these are some I found after doing some digging. . If you personally believe that these organizations are biased or unreliable, that is your opinion. One's personal opinion is irrelevant (see WP:NOTFORUM). We look at, again, the reliable sources and make make conclusions based on them. The same thing goes for the human shielding question. At best, the evidence from reliable sources that Hamas uses human shields is sketchy; at worst, it is nonexistent. If you have a critique of HRW's methods, that is interesting, though it's not for here (see WP:OR). If it was just HRW, I could take you seriously, but the idea that every NGO, every human rights organization, the UN, scholarly sources, and a number of reliable media outlets are all engaging in a diabolical, leftist plot to demonize Israel is just silly. You accused another user on a separate topic of being a "single-purpose POV-pusher" who "arouses suspicion". I can say the same thing about you. JDiala (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that almost half of Palestinians are children under 14, who normally need less than 2000 calories per day, leaving more for the rest. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's somewhat more complicated than that. If the average child requires 1500 calories and adult 2400 calories, the mean is 1950 calories. That's only a 300 calorie surplus assuming even distribution, which, as I mentioned, is simply unrealistic. Regardless, this is, again, a WP:SYNTH, mathematical issue. There is also the issue that malnutrition encompasses more than just calories. You must also take into account food quality and nutritional value (vitamins/minerals). The sources are clear: there is a food crisis in Gaza. It's by no means mass starvation, that was never implied, but it's unacceptable and evidently a humanitarian issue. JDiala (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not an official of anything and never been to Gaza, but it is really not the desperate place many think it is. Look it up, there are hotels in Gaza, restaurants, rich neighborhoods, big markets, shopping malls, even a zoo. Territories with deep humanitarian issues don't have much of these. Daily lives there seem to be very different than what the media decides to show. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent change - another source
I noticed this revert. Without getting into whether or not the way the argument is presented is correct (I haven't fully checked), would USA Today be accepted? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The new wording that I removed was sourced to The Washington Free Beacon, an organization far from journalism. I do not see your source including any statements on what Abbas believes to have been the overall effect of the attacks on Gaza on Hamas. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided not 1 but 3 sources. I have no objection whatsoever to removing the beacon as source. Anything else ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit is not only a revert, it is a bulk POV push - it includes a revert of my edits yesterday (without providing any reason), as well as removing ITIC, which violates 1RR and contradicts the existing consensus on representing all the different POVs on the numbers/percents of casualties.
 * This USA today's article may be usable somewhere in the article, but not as a reference for this statement. In the 3 new sources I added yesterday Abbas says that he doesn't believe Hamas won (never actually says that it lost) and Hamas did not gain anything. In this new source he says that Hamas could avoid all the casualties. Taken together I understand them to mean that in his opinion Hamas caused (or did not prevent) death and suffering in Gaza for no gain, but this is WP:OR or WP:SYN unless there is a reliable source that makes this connection. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)