Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 18

Reverting the final paragraph of the lead
The paragraph in question has been in the article for years (almost since the beginning). See, for instance, this version in 2015. Some random editor with 22 edits (who had no business editing this article in the first place), removed this paragraph from the lead. I simply restored it again. Please self-revert. If you have any issues with it, discuss it here, instead of blanket reverting. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been gone since April 2016 (so 20 months now). It is a very poor and overly long POVish summary of section 3.3. How about getting a more neutral summary in place?Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been gone because nobody noticed it. The person who removed it had no business editing this article, nor was there any discussion about it. The paragraph is not ideal but it was crafted over many months with lots of compromises. It's illegitimate to simply remove it. Consensus can change, but there has to be real work behind it. Please self-revert your blanket removal, and then discuss your issues here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The stable version is the version without the POVish, poorly sourced, paragraph that doesn't match the body of the article. Had you challenged this in May 2016 - you would have had a very strong point. At present - the body evolved in the 20 months since April 2016 - the article has been edited, and this old paragraph does not match the body (e.g. - even in such trivialities as the bottom range of Gazan killed, or Gazan civilian death estimates (the old lead states a bottom range of 50%, the article (in Casualties and Losses) - states 36%.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So change it to 36%, but don't remove the whole thing. In the same way, you can challenge other aspects of the paragraph. Again, the paragraph was in the article for years, and the removal was done without any discussion by a random editor with 22 edits. Am I expected to keep watching this article till I die of old age? If I had seen it then, I would have definitely objected. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. It is overly long.Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC) I do not concede the April 2016 version is stable - but for the sake of compromise (and to avoid a 1RR 24hr standoff) I self-reverted, then corrected some numbers that didn't match the body, and trimmed down the paragraph - it probably requires some more work.Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am mostly fine with your edits, with the exception of your edit here. You have elided the "UN and other human rights orgs" part, added a POV phrase, and reduced the matter to a "he said, she said". This isn't acceptable. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a he said / she said situation (maybe there is a 3rd said?). Currently the UN HRC report (which possibly should be removed per SYNTH) cited in the body doesn't go into this (I would've added it if it were a reasonable report for civilian percentage - but it doesn't appear in the actual report!). Other than that, the previous lead cited - casualty figures from Gaza Ministry of Health, a dead link, and a September 2014 OCHA document - which is primarily based on the Gaza Ministry of Health. It might be possible to source a 3rd or 4th opinion here (B'tselem might have one, and there might a different humanitarian body that isn't based off of regurgitating GMH) - but it should be properly established.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. The methodology section (as well as the UNHRC report) explains that the UN figures use various sources, of which the Gaza Health ministry is only one. ("Hamas-controlled" is silly is needs to be dropped -- this has been discussed before too). I'll copy paste from the report: The Protection Cluster is the mechanism for coordinating humanitarian action by humanitarian organizations (UN and non-UN) working in the protection sector. OHCHR leads the Protection Cluster in the OPT. OHCHR compiled figures on fatalities in its capacity as leader of the Protection Cluster. The methodology used involves the compilation of initial reports of fatalities from the media and other sources which are then crosschecked and verified in collaboration with a number of international, Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations. Where available, each individual’s name, age, sex and place of death is determined, as well as their status as a civilian or combatant where possible. Multiple sources are cross-referenced, not only from media and various human rights organizations, but also information released by the IDF and by the Palestinian armed groups regarding the identity of combatants. Information from the Ministry of Health in Gaza is one, but not an exclusive, source of information. Verification of the information collected is continuing. Figures are published on the website of OCHA on behalf of the Protection Cluster.

The casualties section can be trimmed and updated; much of the information is old. B'Tselem figures are available here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I saw B'Tselem - they moved over to these horrendous info-graphics in their site revamp rather than tables and PDF reports that are easier to cite - however it seems they are mostly following OHCA (or vice-versa).Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein on report by Amnesty International
Finkelstein was wrong, as usual. As you can see from Amnesty's own report:

The Israeli authorities claim that Hamas and Palestinian armed groups use Palestinian civilians in Gaza as “human shields”. Does Amnesty International have any evidence that this has occurred during the current hostilities, and what obligations of Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups are relevant?

Amnesty International is aware of these claims, and continues to monitor and investigate reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. '''As explained above, in previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip, and available evidence indicates that they continue to do both during the current hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople have reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate.''' However, in light of the lack of clarity in many of the Israeli warnings on safe routes for civilians to evacuate, the lack of shelters or other safe places in the Gaza Strip for them to go to, and numerous reports of civilians who did heed the warnings and flee doing so under Israeli fire, such statements by Hamas officials could have been motivated by a desire to avoid further panic. In any case, public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law is clear that even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups associated with other factions did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives from attacks, all of Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply. --יניב הורון (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The passage from Finkelstein is not about this conflict, it is about the 2008-09 war. It refers to Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction from AI.  nableezy  - 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. Yes it was 2008-2009 when this hasbara crap hit the airwaves, and stuck. Finkelstein, who, unlike the newspapers that recycle IDF and IFM spin, actually cares for facts, and has an outstanding record for sticking to them, did say recently that no evidence has emerged for latter conflicts also that Hamas uses human shields. As every Israeli reader knows, it was official IDF policy to use Palestinians as shields until the High Court condemned the practice. Afterwards it continued as unofficial fields practice, to this day.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Human Shields
In the section "Alleged violations by Hamas"; subsection "Human Shields" I object to the final paragraph for a number of reasons: In general this paragraph reflects poorly on Wiki quality and my suggestion is to delete it as unsubstantiated and/or redundant duplication. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The first phrase is original research not at all supported by the offered reference
 * 2) In any event, the source was a tweet and as per WP:SPS that is only permitted when the tweeter is an acknowledged expert
 * 3) Other tweets are provided which trash the one used as source material, thereby casting significant doubt on Stefanovic's status as an 'expert'
 * 4) The rest of the paragraph contains material which is treated in other sub-sections

In fact this entire section of Endangerment of Civilians is chaotic with intermixing of 'Human shield' into 'Civilian structures' and vice versa, and then 'medical' facilities appearing as a separate type of structure - really messy editing. The section looks like it was designed by a committee.
 * Are you talking about the first claim of the last paragraph: "The statements fall into two categories", the claim following it: "using civilian structures like homes, mosques and hospitals to store munitions in or launch rockets from", or something else ? The first can be dropped (especially considering there are actually more than two claims being made) and the second indeed can use a better source. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Partly . "We agree that the first phrase is unsubstantiated and can be deleted. The rest of the paragraph required attention. There is a mix of themes treated in different sections in the article's current form. One concerns Human Shields (including both using live people for defence, and also using civilian facilities as protection from retaliation to military actions) and the second is using civilian structures for 'other' purposes (accommodation, storage of military equipment, etc. In the remainder of the section on "Endangerment of Civilians" these distinctions are mixed and repeated between the various sub-sections, for example the single topic of firing rockets from the vicinity of civilians is treated and repeated under all of: 1) 'Human Shields' (correctly so), but also under ii) Use of civilian structures for military purposes (needless repetition) and also under iii) Medical facilities and personnel, under iv) Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes, and also under v) Military use of UN facilities. If we wish to retain ii) to v), then the piece in i) becomes a redundant duplication of the same topic, and vice versa. We cannot have both options preserved in properly indexed text. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Article's WP:BIAS review - starting June 2018
1) In Background, the sentence "In mid-2006 an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border raid" is WP:UNDUE. Incidents occurred in 2006 in Gaza in which the IDF killed Gazans let alone capturing many others, yet these 'incidents' are not mentioned. Cite WP:BIAS Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Gilad Shalit affair had lasting impact on relations, and the massive 2011 prisoner release due Shalit's exchange was significant (and a motivation). In contrast, most of the other incidents you mentioned had no lasting impact.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That correctly reflects the US-Israeli-(UK) view, but only that. Doing so exclusively, violates WP:BIAS. And the reason is that there is an easily documented opposite (balancing) view that the prior obliteration of most of a Gaza family on a beach was far more relevant to tension than the mere capturing of a single soldier. There were Gaza officials stating that the extra-judicial IDF assassination of Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) leader Jamal Abu Samhadana in early June 2006 was a trigger to a chain of bellicose events, including Shalit's abduction. As I said at the start, mentioning only Shalit is UNDUE and/or BIASed. You have expressly been against "puffiness" in the past. I suggest we remove this single (jarring reading) one-sided insertion. But I would be OK with leaving it in if we then detail all of the other events in the chain as per the Journal of Palestinian Studies and other analyses and timelines. I will go with consensus on whether to "puff" or not. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

2) "November 2012 ceasefire and its violations" The subtitle suggests that it concerns the end of the November 2012 conflict. Instead it starts by addressing the start of the November 2012 altercation. In addition the text is yet another example of violation of WP:BIAS since it provides only the pro-Israeli narrative with no mention being made of the event which triggered the firing of rockets from Gaza at Israel, namely the IDF assassination of a senior Hamas official. This review is part of my on-going effort to address balance and WP:BIAS in ARBPIA articles Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
On 4 June 2018 once again deleted text fully supported by multiple sources provided, this time using a 'fly-by' claim of WP:SYNTH. The pattern [first identified by ] is hereby further confirmed and recorded - see the section 'Blind Reverting' in Talk Gaza War (2008–09) Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see when this statement was added originally. If it is recent, it is up to the editor who added it to gain consensus for its inclusion.
 * In Battle of Gaza (2007) it is explicitly stated that pre-emption is pro-Hamas POV, not an absolute fact. Most of the sources are books so I can't see the exact quote. One that I can check is a blog entry by Noam Chomsky and the other quotes David Wurmser; both fine to support the people holding these opinions but not an objective fact stated in WP voice. I'm not sure how SP:SYNTH applies here, but one just doesn't put POV-prone statements in the lead. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then buy the book. I have a copy of Avi Shlaim's book "The Iron Wall" in front of me. On page 798 of the paperback version it states exactly what Yaniv deleted. I was not aware that any Wiki author needed consensus to add text from a major work by a respected Israeli historian to Wiki. Please point me at the source of this claim that the editor who adds from quality literature needs to prove that it is in that cited source, because right now I am highly dubious. I reject your other claim that Rose and Vanity Fair require further substantiation, which has already been addressed. It was Rose who uncovered the documentation. In VF it is stated that U.S. sources verified the documents. It has already been shown that VF made a deliberate policy change to include politics and current affairs in its repertoire and hired expert staff to resource the change. It has already been shown that David Rose received numerous awards and accolades for journalism. So show your evidence instead of more subjective POV please, to substantiate your support for deletion of high quality resources. Many thanks in anticipation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for pointing out that WP:SYNTH does not apply. Noted. Thanks also for pointing out the error in Battle of Gaza (2007). I will correct it. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that SYNTH doesn't apply, I said that don't see how it does. Perhap can explain.
 * Even if many respectable historians hold an opinion, it doesn't automatically make it a fact if there are other equally established specialists holding a different POV. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What different historians have different views (and in this case we are talking about a clear minority view) - we do not take the minority view and then describe as fact in wiki-voice. Having a WP:RS is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for Wikipedia voice statements - particularly when the subject in a matter of interpretation (as opposed to a fact) and there are differing opinions.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again I disagree with these reasonings. It is not simply a Google "results count" since, as is so correctly pointed out, not all sources are equal, but at the same time Wiki is not a poll. Facts trump less well-informed content. The so-called "majority" view was not based on complete information, for instance that stemming from the Palestine Papers (PP). It could not have been because the "majority views" cited in the article do not reflect the PP content at all. On the other hand I sought additional material and failed to find any credible source that refuted the PP as reflecting the interchanges at the time. Not only is the "minority view" therefore based on more complete data and hence more robust analysis, but two separate sources both point in the same direction, and counter the "majority". In addition to the PP already mentioned, as you will have read having examined (?) the Rose citation, he quotes previously concealed U.S. documentation, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials confirming the coup plan. I fail to see the logic of your marginalisations of these two mutually confirming sources compared to the weaker-based chronologies and mass media versions of the "majority". In fact, in those sources I could not find anything pertinent to the origin of the coup at all. I therefore conclude that the deleted text reflects much higher quality resources, that there is zero WP:SYNTH involved, plus furthermore that the deleted material is far more encyclopaedic than, for instance, a tepid "Hamas violently overthrew Fatah in Gaza". So, 'NO' the cited sources are a majority view of those which include all documentation pertinent to the overthrow. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I included verbatim text in a QUOTE from Shlaim's book to assist those who do not own or have library access to this work. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With not much effort I found a WWW source containing the (partial) text of Shlaims conclusions on Hamas's pre-emption of the Fatah-coup and added it the reference. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was unable to verify your claim above that:"'In Battle of Gaza (2007) it is explicitly stated that pre-emption is pro-Hamas POV, not an absolute fact.'"  Instead, what I found was:"Rose quotes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser David Wurmser, accusing the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”"
 * The Wurmser conclusion is supported by a raft of sources which I did not include because I have previously been accused of "puffiness". These favourable quotations of Wurmser and Rose include, , Sara Roy's book 'Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza' (page 43) , Jacqueline S. Ismael's book 'Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East' , the Institute fro Palestine Studies , plus Egyptian views on a meeting between CENTCOM commander Gen. David Patraeus and Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman in Cairo in June 2009, reported by Ma'an News.
 * Collectively, and further combined with Shlaim's analysis of the Pentagon Papers plus Roses's summary "With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever" all point in the same direction. This weighty collection based on previously unavailable data, overwrites the earlier mainstream version. It seems to me that a far more positive approach would simply be to attribute Wurmser's conclusion, someone who I would sincerely hesitate to call pro-Hamas, given that he was involved in "the passing of classified information to Ahmad Chalabi and/or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Much more like a typical Neocon, not so?
 * Could you kindly enlighten us further as to why you might continue to believe that these combinations are not compelling compared to earlier less-informed and hence outdated opinions, so that consensus can be sought? Many thanks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In Battle of Gaza (2007): "The pro-Fatah view is, that it was a plain military coup by Hamas. The pro-Hamas view is, that ..." &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should write what happened according to reliable sources. After that, depending on WEIGHT, we should write the contrary claims of the parties. The fact that Hamas won the election but used force in order to take power in accordance with the election results is beyond question and all of the sources there at the moment (maybe excepting one that I can't read) agree with that. All of the sources, except possibly that one, also say that a coup against Hamas was being planned. There's no reason at all not to follow the sources. Zerotalk 03:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not seen a single credible source refuting the fact that Fatah, with Israeli and U.S. urging and support, successfully prevented Hamas from governing in the West Bank, and was in the process of resisting this Hamas right in Gaza also, in particular, physically resisting Hamas's right to access government buildings and to elect and install the leadership of the security forces. Instead, sourced data were erased with unsupported "justifications". First claim was that Read and Vanity Fair were not WP:RS, which continued even after their quality credentials were posted in Talk. The next was the vapid accusation that the coup attempt is a "minority" view". I repeat, there is ZERO view that the U.S.-sponsored coup did not exist. This led {{user|Nableezy]] to observe the existence of a pattern of unjustified non-RS / UNDUE / SYNTH / BIAS / POV and other so-called "justifications" in ARBPIA articles. The current is yet one more example on record. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

On 1 July 2018 {{user|Diannaa}} deleted 7278kb worth of sourced text in multiple deletions of 'Quotes' within sources, all in a single edit. The justification was "remove excessive non-free content, per WP:NFCC". In fact, all of the quotes were from perfectly free online content. The reason provided was therefore a totally fictitious and false misuse of WP:NFCC, which means that this huge edit was vandalism. Recorded as another case of "the pattern". Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator who specializes in copyright issues. Material you find on news websites and pages such as the Vanity Fair website are marked as copyright and per our non-free content rules should not be copied here without good reason. That's why I removed the quotations fron the citations. These quotations are unnecessary, because the webpages are readily available and anyone can visit them and read the content. It's unnecessary and a violation of our non-free content rules to copy the material here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With due respect to your expert status I always check to satisfy my knowledge growth. On the Vanity Fair web site that you specifically chose as a rebuttal example, the page specifically invites sharing. Nor could I find the copyright notice noted by you --> "are marked as copyright". Is that assumed even if not there? Please enlighten a humble editor who reveres logic, facts and reason. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanity Fair offers the invitation for Facebook and Twitter users to copy a link to their Facebook or Twitter page. That's not the same thing as releasing the material to the public domain. The copyright notice is at the bottom of the page; it reads "© 2018 Condé Nast. All rights reserved." (You may have to click on the notice to accept cookies, as this banner covers the copyright notice the first time you load the page.) Similarly, Al Jazeera is marked as "© 2018 Al Jazeera Media Network"; BBC Network is marked as "Copyright © 2018 BBC"; and so on. You are correct when you say that copyright is assumed even if the page is not marked as copyright. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite extensive discussion here, Yaniv again (1 July 2018) deleted the validly source reference (x2) to the Fatah attempted coup and the Hamas anti-coup response. This is now tendentious editing in my view, and has proceeded beyond a simple "pattern". Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not achieved consensus for stating this minority view as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please provide your rebuttal, let us start with the Rose and Vanity Fair credentials. Otherwise you are just arguing from silence and Wiki addresses that. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2020
Request: In the Military operations, weaponry and techniques section it says that Israel used... US-manufactured Paladin M109s (155-mm howitzers). Israel did not use the Paladin (the M109A6 version, which is the only one called Paladin) in 2014 and still does not, the Israeli M109 self-propelled guns are upgraded M109A2’s called Doher.

Specific request: Replace"Israel used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery includes Soltam M71 guns and US-manufactured Paladin M109s (155-mm howitzers)."with Israel used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery included Soltam 155-mm M71 guns and US-manufactured M109 Doher self-propelled 155-mm howitzers upgraded in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.94.30 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: MOVE (closed by non-admin page mover)  John B123 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – The name “conflict” seems like an understatement since it was an all out war and the death toll was high. It is also the common name for this conflict, is consistent with Gaza War (2008–2009) Ridax2020 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It has been discussed before: But now, six years after the fact, "Gaza war" is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME.  Im The IP  (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Please prove that its indeed WP:COMMONNAME --Shrike (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The query 2014 "Gaza war" yield 211k Google hits, 2014 "Israel-Gaza conflict" only 53k hits and most of those are from 2014 or 2015. Im The IP  (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely 2014 Gaza War is a better title that Gaza War (2014)? Number   5  7  12:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we would have to move Gaza War (2008–2009) to 2008–2009 Gaza War in order to be consistent. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think 2014 Gaza War is better and more in line with sources. We don't have to be "consistent" and change another article title.Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Choosing 2014 Gaza War instead, I agree with your statement Ridax2020 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support A quick and dirty search shows the usual suspects, NYT, WAPO, Guardian, AP all using Gaza War even the Times of Israel and the Jerusalem Post do so.Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. - Śα ǿt ur α 💬 15:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue?
The images used in the article are adding undue weight to one side only. For instance, it presently has images from IDF showing Israeli people and kids running for shelter and only one image of a Palestinian kid while more than 2200+ Palestinians were killed that includes a significant no. of children aged below 15 years! Please, at least add a few more images of casualties on the Palestinian side. Avinashbb (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda for Israel?
Is this page meant to be an example of Israeli propaganda? It is rife with errors, misreporting and POV violations.

The origins of the war started with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitunia_killings, conveniently ignored here.

Much is made of the "Hamas" kidnapping, but as even the source material points out [Note 150] this is incorrect: the kidnappers were a rogue group operating independently.

Then we see that "the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest militant leaders, Hamas fired rockets into Israel." Except that "The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more." https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/ – the first time Hamas launched rockets since 2012. This despite the IDF destruction of houses (violating the law on collective punishment) before Hamas responded.

And while we are at it, let's play down the Israeli cease-fire violations (https://thejerusalemfund.org/8747/israelgaza-cease-fire-dynamics-breakdown and https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/infographic-who-violates-ceasefires-more-israelis-or-palestinians) leading into the war.

There is the usual biased use of terms: "after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis which was caused by an Israeli airstrike,..." Not killed, since "died" is exclusively used for Arabs (except for a few who specifically had heart attacks). The Israeli deaths are described much more comprehensively and individually, than the Arab deaths, with every single Israeli civilian death for the first couple of weeks called out individually. And the Palestinian numbers of killed are always disputed.

Pretty much the usual propaganda techniques used in this conflict Mcdruid (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
The current summary of the 2014 Gaza War erroneously and arbitrarily implies Hamas started the conflict by kidnapping 3 Israeli teenagers when in fact, the heinous kidnappings were retaliatory measures for the IDF's cover-up and refusal to investigate and pursue justice for the Beitunia Killings which occurred a few weeks prior in May 2014.

I suggest changing the second sentence of the article from: "Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest militant leaders, Hamas fired rockets into Israel and a seven-week conflict broke out." to "Following the shooting of two Palestinian teenagers by IDF forces on the annual Nakba day protests, and the subsequent kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest militant leaders, Hamas fired rockets into Israel and a seven-week conflict broke out."

I also suggest citing the Beitunia Killings, where the IDF soldier was actually put on trial and convicted of causing death by negligence and admitted to illegally using live ammunition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitunia_killings

To truncate and leave out the Palestinian side of the story defies causality and projects Israeli bias on the part of Wikipedia. If Truth is what we're after, then I think people should be given the full, untruncated story from both sides and be allowed to decide for themselves. 76.103.212.178 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is WP, even the truth needs a aource, have you got one? We can't cite WP either.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1. The Beitunia Killings has 74 different external citations. I think citations #72 and #73 are particularly relevant as it shows the Palestinian mindset and perspective. There is no controversy or doubt here. The IDF soldier was convicted by Israeli courts and admitted to unlawfully killing the child with live ammunition.

2. The Beitunia Killings already shows up under the timeline for the 2014 Gaza conflict, again with sources and citations. It's just not cited here, thus leaving out the Palestinian motives for the revenge killings of the 3 Israeli teenagers. I think it's important for objectivity and neutrality that the average person who is looking for a summary of events is told why a conflict happened from both sides instead of a truncated narrative that leaves out the Palestinian perspective.

76.103.212.178 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 76.103.212.178 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ This is a controversial change for which consensus is unclear. Consensus is required to fulfill the edit request. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you reach a consensus here? The entire Israel-Palestine conflict itself is controversial. Avinashbb (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is so controversial, why is the current wording allowed to stand? Give me a break, the current article goes back to 2005, yet doesn't include the murder of two kids which motivated the kidnappers? As it is, the entire blame is put on the Palestinians and no mention is made of the constant high level of Israeli violations: https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/styles/original_800w/public/2014-07/revised-vp-ceasefireviolations-datasketch-rev01-20140724.png?itok=HH-cdCbl&timestamp=1448949295 Mcdruid (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased to Israeli point of view
Article fails to address and spot light at the fact that Gaza Strip had been under siege by Israel for almost 8 years by the time the 2014 war broke out Elayano (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You probably mean blockade, not siege. From the lead: "Hamas's goal was to bring international pressure to bear to lift Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip". The blockade is discussed for a whole paragraph in background secion. Is there anything else you would like to add? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "Siege" is the more appropriate word. Israel's attacks on Gaza did not just appear in June. Israel was the initiator of violence against Gaza and continued to break most of the ceasefires during the period before major violence. https://thejerusalemfund.org/2014/02/israelgaza-cease-fire-dynamics-breakdown/ A blockade would not include these aggressions, nor the daily attacks on Gazan fishermen. Mcdruid (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force." "A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault." Unless you can prove beyond any doubt that Israel intents to conquer Gaza, the term siege is not appropriate. The term blockade is certainly appropriate, Israel openly admits that it prevents Hamas from receiving millitary supplies. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "blockade" does not describe the ongoing attacks on Gaza by Israel. "Siege" is NOT limited to military uses or intent to conquer. For example: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/twilight-zone/.premium.HIGHLIGHT.MAGAZINE-for-50-days-israel-kept-this-palestinian-village-under-siege-1.10592458 and https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/05/frustrated-frazzled-and-under-siege-scott-morrisons-faith-in-himself-takes-a-hit: both from recent articles. Mcdruid (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)