Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 69

Implementation
“and that weapons smuggling was not halted” is UNDUE because nowhere do any of the sources show that this was an agreed condition of the truce. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

More poor text: "("between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets,[109] and 18 mortar shells [110] were fired at Israel")". In fact the Ynet source mentions nothing of the sort. Rather it notes that it was not even certain that any of the rockets landed in Israel, and certainly nothing about three rockets and five mortars falling inside the Gaza strip.

Background section review
The final paragraph of the lede to 'Background' - I just don't understand the entire text. It starts with rockets then moves to the hugely more destructive heavy ordnance. Then, in an Article about Gaza, it gives us irrelevant facts regarding how many Palestinians and Israelis died in all of Israel/West Bank/Gaza. Next issue: It relates that 59 Palestinians were killed in Gaza between 2005 and 2007 yet the cited source reveals that 112 were killed just in 2005. In the entire background section (basically Feb 2005 to June 2008) not a single mention is made of the most important chain of altercations during this period, let alone its cause and effects, involving the notorious Gaza beach bombing, Shalits kidnapping, and two IDF invasions of Gaza.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The next issue that I came across was the first sentence of the second paragraph under "2006 six-month ceasefire", specifically the phrase "... and to enforce the lull throughout Gaza". I do not know how to describe that other than as an insertion into Wiki of a deliberate fabrication. The comprehensive House of Common (HOC) review of the hostilities provides various versions of the understandings, none of which present a formal obligation on Hamas to stop all rocket fire. In fact that insertion is nothing more than an (extra-agreement demand) made by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert (page 5). I have deleted it without waiting for discussion and have entered the HOC source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The next sentence implies that the 'lull' deal included an end to Hamas' military buildup in Gaza and movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit. In fact, as pointed out by Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), these points were a source of conflict between the two parties and certainly not mutually agreed. I therefore intend to reword the entry to reflect this, plus to insert the ITIC source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In the sub-section "2008 six-month ceasefire" there are duplications in the last sentence. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

recent reverts
, if you want to follow BRD then discussion follows the revert. The reversions of well-sourced material require an explanation. The material currently in the article, that Hamas overthrew Fatah (when they had won the election) is directly contradicted by reliable sources. The Weisglass quote is directly related the material it is referring to. You need to justify these reversions, just claiming that you are following BRD is not acceptable in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions.  nableezy  - 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with and  ... I have also noticed the regular use of unsubstantiated WP:ONUS, UNDUE, WP:RS etc. reverts in DS topics. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is quite POVish, based on rather poor sources (Vanity Fair). It is also somewhat off-topic for this article - presenting this POVish spin on the Hamas takeover of Gaza a few years prior to the war.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - you prove our point perfectly. You inject a POV regarding Vanity Fair without providing a single shred of evidence. Compare your non-input to the following from me:
 * "Vanity Fair (VF) is published by Condé Nast, a 110 year old American mass media company with 164 million consumers across its 19 brands (which includes the New Yorker). Mediabiasfactcheck rates VF's factual reporting as 'High' - "Overall, Vanity Fair is well written and mostly factual, but there is a clear left wing bias". MFC gives VF a similar status to that of the New York Times. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, VF has always covered politics quite heavily since the appointment of Graydon Carter as editor in 1992, and accelerated its political coverage after 911, including the hiring of Pulitzer-prize-winning investigative journalists. The article "Gaza Bombshell" was written by David Rose, an investigative journalist, author of six non-fiction books, News Reporter of the Year in the Society of Editors British Press Awards for 2015, and winner of the Royal Institute of International Affairs David Watt Memorial Prize. In 2013, a poll of investigative reporters organised by the UK Press Gazette named him among the top ten practitioners of his trade."
 * Can you spot the difference, Icewhiz? I view the VF article as an excellent piece of investigative journalism, bringing both encyclopaedic content and a balancing view that is fully substantiated by previously unpublished documentation. Perfect for Wiki's 5 Pillars. Once again thank you for having provided your timely assistance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Fair isnt a poor source, and it certainly isnt a Hamas spin. That is a bizarre line to say the least.  nableezy  - 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Icewhiz stop throwing around arbitrary pseudo-policy claims as you edit, such as 'off-topic' when the matter is focused on the topic, or asserting that the key article for the PLO/Israeli/US coup against the election winner, Hamas, being in Vanity Fair, is unreliable. It is widely cited as a first-rate piece of investigative reportage.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanity fair is not exactly known for their insight on political ongoings in far away countries, but even if it was, the text as it was put in the article is an obvious NPOV violation, pushing the idea that Hamas was forced in some what to violently take over Gaza while throwing people off buildings. I think we all know that can't stand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to what No More Mr Nice Guy said, Weisglass's random quote doesn't necessarily reflect Israel's policy regarding the blockade. It's extremely POV and undue. There was no policy to "put Palestinians on a diet" or something. There's a clear policy to prevent Hamas from obtaining weapons and building tunnels, which is the reason why some dual-use products (such as cement) are sometimes banned. There's no significant restriction on food.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but your unsourced assertions go directly against what reliable sources say. The idea that Hamas "overthrew" Fatah is directly disputed by reliable sources. You cannot insert non-NPOV material under the guise of "BRD". Weisglass' quote is not random, it is directly related to the preceding line. This game of making up claims that do not withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny and then reverting is what cant stand.  nableezy  - 23:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If you wont allow material on Fatah attempting a coup to be included then I am removing the material on Hamas "overthrowing" Fatah.  nableezy  - 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you say the balance of RS present this, as "Fatah attempting a coup" or as "Hamas overthrowing Fatah"? It's been over 10 years, there's plenty of RS by now.
 * I also agree with Yaniv that this random Weisglass quote is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So we are supposed to allow unchallenged the contention that Israel allowed in humanitarian aid? When several human rights groups have said they were restricting it?  nableezy  - 23:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as how do RS balance it? Idk, Here is Avi Shlaim: "Hamas preempted a Fatah coup". Or here: "the weight of evidence shows that Fatah, not Hamas, carried out a coup in cahoots with the Bush adminstration". You cannot put statements that reliable sources directly dispute as undisputed facts. The idea that Hamas overthrew Fatah is such a statement.  nableezy  - 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What happened to BRD? Also, that Weisglass quote has been challenged by two editors. The ONUS is on you to gain consensus for it. Why did you restore it when you knew there was no consensus on the talk page?
 * Please explain what "contradicts" the sourced material (which has been in the article for how long?) you removed.
 * I asked what you think the balance of the sources say, not to fish for a couple that support one side or the other. Do most sources say that Hamas overthrew Fatah, or not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus requires reasons based in policy, so far all that has been offered in opposition is that it is UNDUE without any explanation as to how. It is directly related to the topic, and other inclusions of material showing that Israel purposely withheld food aid have likewise been removed without basis. As far as fishing, sorry, that isnt what I was doing. What I was doing was providing proof that the material you reverted to include was directly disputed by reliable sources, and that the view that Hamas did not "overthrow" Fatah and that they instead repelled a coup is reliably sourced and is a significant view. And WP:NPOV requires its inclusion.  nableezy  - 01:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But fine, Ill remove the quote, but Ill be adding material from Amnesty and Oxfam on Israel restricting medical supplies and food.  nableezy  - 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked what you thought the balance of the sources is. I am aware that some sources say Hamas was preempting a coup or words to that effect. But the vast majority say it overthrew Fatah. Which makes sense since one day Fatah was in charge, a few days of violence later Hamas was in charge. In normal English usage you'd say Hamas overthrew Fatah. We could say something along the lines of "Hamas overthrew Fatah. Some people say they were preempting a coup while others say Abbas had the authority to dismiss the government". We'd have to investigate how much weight to give those two opposing opinions, but the overthrow is a fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont think the vast majority of sources support what you say, certainly not the vast majority since the Vanity Fair piece uncovered the evidence sources such as Shlaim use and the Wikileaks of the diplomatic cables was released. And no, overthrow is not a fact. To overthrow Fatah means that Fatah was the rightful government. And they were (are) not. When exactly was "Fatah in charge" of Gaza? Or the PNA for that matter? Abbas holding the presidency doesnt dismiss that Hamas was the majority party in the PLC. Regardless, the reliable sources that dispute the view that Hamas simply violently overthrew Fatah have been presented, and since I have answered your questions how about you answer mine. Is it a NPOV to discount the reliable sources that say Hamas repelled a coup instead of overthrowing Fatah? Is it a NPOV violation to say as a fact that Hamas overthrew Fatah, full stop? And what about the material on the restrictions on food, is it a NPOV violation to excise that from the article?  nableezy  - 00:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally the vast majority of countries, international bodies, and media reporting does not see Hamas as the legitimate government of Gaza (or of the PA as a whole). They may be wrong, but it is quite clear that Abbas and the PA receive the vast majority of recognition.Icewhiz (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont actually know what you are responding to here. It doesnt seem to be anything I wrote. Or anything we are discussing in this section. Maybe Im wrong, but I dont see it.  nableezy  - 07:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the promotion of this clearly small minority view, which the piece in Vanity Fair perhaps partially supports, that casts the Hamas takeover of Gaza as something different from a violent usurpation of power. Most sources take a different tack, for instance NPR in 2017: Ten years ago this summer, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas staged a coup, ousted members of the rival Fatah party and took over the Gaza Strip. . You can find a source pushing just about any narrative on Gaza - including the Islamist narrative. This is a question of WP:BALASP.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you paying even a little bit of attention to the sources brought in support of this? Maybe try not making clearly bogus claims such as clearly small minority view when it has such sources citing it as: *Nathan Thrall, The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine, Henry Holt and Company, 2017 p.271 n.20 *Bjorn Brenner, Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance,   I.B.Tauris 2017 p.207 n.21 *Eugenio Lilli, #New Beginning in US-Muslim Relations: President Obama and the Arab Awakening,   Springer, 2016   p.98 .n46 Jason Brownlee, Democracy  Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.-Egyptian Alliance, Cambridge University Press, 2012  p.223, notes 76,78 *Daniel C. Kurtzer, Scott B. Lasensky, William B. Quandt, Steven L. Spiegel, Shibley Telhami The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011, Cornell University Press, 2012  p.217 You cannot per NPOV not include significant POVs as published by RS, and the simplistic line you keep pushing is doing exactly that. When you continually make completely bogus claims, like Vanity Fair is a poor source, or that this is Hamas spin, or that this is a clearly minority POV it makes it difficult to reach a consensus as the arguments seem to have not factual basis that I should be responding to.  nableezy  - 08:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's how Haaretz described it last month - https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/the-bloody-hamas-fatah-power-struggle-that-threatens-to-reignite-1.5054803 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

the quote you cite from Haaretz is not reported as a fact but rather as a claim by COGAT, and even then it doesnt dispute that those calculations were in fact made to determine the levels of food allowed into the strip. But it is reported as a disputed claim by COGAT, and does not in any way justify the wholesale reversion you made. I mean if it ends up being reverted per WP:BAN later or not, you at least should give us the honor of gracing us with your presence here to justify why you returned the material on Fatah being "overthrown". As NMMNG says above, the ONUS is on you to show consensus for inclusion apparently. Beyond that, it is demonstrably a NPOV violation.  nableezy  - 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I am not including any=thing, but rather excluding something which misrepresents its source material, I don't see how WP:ONUS applies. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, did you not notice you restored material about Hamas overthrowing Fatah? And what misrepresented what source? The source on the calculations did not say the government made those calculations to determine how they should provide just enough food so as not to starve Gaza, but not so much that their needs were met? Or what about the source about the cable that quotes an Israeli diplomat saying their aim was to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse? That was misrepresented how? Please do reply User:Firkin Flying Fox, I very much would like to know how the material misrepresents those sources. And why you restored a NPOV violation That being the Hamas overthrowing Fatah, which ONUS would apply to.  nableezy  - 04:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source most certainly did not say the government made those calculations to determine how they should provide just enough food so as not to starve Gaza, as anyone who reads it can see. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From the Guardian source cited:"The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order."From the Haartez source cited:"The 'red lines' document calculates the minimum number of calories needed by every age and gender group in Gaza, then uses this to determine the quantity of staple foods that must be allowed into the Strip every day, as well as the number of trucks needed to carry this quantity. On average, the minimum worked out to 2,279 calories per person per day, which could be supplied by 1,836 grams of food, or 2,575.5 tons of food for the entire population of Gaza. Bringing this quantity into the Strip would require 170.4 truckloads per day, five days a week. From this quantity, the document's authors then deducted 68.6 truckloads to account for the food produced locally in Gaza mainly vegetables, fruit, milk and meat. The documents note that the Health Ministry's data about various products includes the weight of the package (about 1 to 5 percent of the total weight) and that 'The total amount of food takes into consideration 'sampling' by toddlers under the age of 2 (adds 34 tons per day to the general population).' ... The point of the 'red lines' document was to see if this number of trucks in fact met Gaza's needs."It doesnt say exactly what I said it says? Those quotes arent from the cited sources?  nableezy  - 05:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source clearly quotes COGAT as saying this there was no such policy, that this a rough draft, never discused, and never implemented. If you were editing in a NPOV way, as required by Wikipedia policy, don't you think this needed mentioning? Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What policy did I write that Israel implemented? And really, after your two edits with their either blank or straight up lie of an edit summary, youre gonna lecture me on NPOV? And in all your usernames and all your years of editing, have you still not learned that the word of the Israeli government is not gospel here?  nableezy  - 07:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy called WP:NPV, one of the main pillars of Wikipedia, which requires all significant viewpoints be presented. I will lecture you until you start editing properly. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

as::::Oh, and User:Firkin Flying Fox, you still havent answered why you removed the quote from the Israeli diplomat, or added the material on Hamas overthrowing Fatah. Please do so.  nableezy  - 05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No arguments are being supplied for the elisions. It is stupid to harp 'wp:undue' without providing arguments based on policy, for example. If one says Rose's Vanity Fair article is undue, you have to explain why it is so widely cited in quality sources. If reliable sources widely cite a piece of reportage, then that emphasizes that the information is thought to be important, hence due. Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unrestrained application of WP:ONUS and/or WP:BURDEN  has been shown to have grave risks for Wiki's integrity. A relatively minor effort (a revert + citing WP:RS and WP:ONUS) can strip the encyclopaedia of verified content, and, as we have seen in this Talk, generate significantly more effort to re-establish the deleted text. Given this (over?)reliance on WP:ONUS, especially in "discretionary sanctions" articles seems to lead inevitably to edit wars. In the case of articles under 'discretionary sanction', I therefore support the contention that reverts of verified text should be accompanied by a Talk justification.
 * In the specific case discussed here, the Weisglass statement turns out to have been reverted because it did allegedly not represent Israeli policy, but we can now see that that allegation has not been verifiably supported as Nableezy and Nishidani have repeatedly pointed out. Nonetheless it is correct, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN put the onus on the restoring editor to prove WP:RS. So let us get on with that right here and show that it WAS policy, thereby satisfying both Wiki protocols
 * In a widely cited article concerning the period 2006/2007 respected analyst Mouin Rabbani published in the prestigious London Review of Books - "In 2006 Weissglass was just as frank about Israel’s policy towards Gaza’s 1.8 million inhabitants: ‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.’ He was not speaking metaphorically." "In early 2006, Dov Weisglass, then a senior advisor to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that Israel’s policy towards Gaza was designed “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”" In 2010 Israel was forced to release documents confirming the dietary calculations and restrictions dating back to 2007 - "I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place. In 2012 Israel was again obliged to release documents as a result of "a High Court hearing on Gisha's petition against this policy ". It was revealed that precise calculations had been made AND implemented as to the minimum caloric intake necessary for Palestinians to avoid malnutrition so Israel could limit the amount of foodstuffs allowed into Gaza without causing outright starvation over a period dating back to 2007. "The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order. To deny that this was policy necessarily means that the military was acting outside of official policy, perhaps an even more heinous long-term violation. "The documents reveal a deliberate policy by the Israeli government in which the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level.
 * Since there has been such insistence on verifying the source of Weisglass' statement and to show that it was 'policy' I will place all of the sources cited above into this article's text so as to safeguard that the same accusations are not made in the future, and also adapt the other related articles accordingly, namely Blockade of the Gaza Strip and Timeline of the Gaza War. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be easier for you to understand why these policies are needed, if you imagined someone was trying to insert a sourced soundbite you think was inappropriate into an article. For example, I could easily find many PA officials saying nasty things about Jews, including Abbas. Should I go and stick those as "background" in anything that's related to the PA and Jews? Of course not. You wouldn't approve if I did and you wouldn't want it to remain in the article until you proved it was UNDUE, either.
 * Not every sourced piece of information belongs in this encyclopedia, which is why consensus is a pillar of Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vanity fair is not exactly known for their insight on political ongoings in far away countries, but even if it was, the text as it was put in the article is an obvious NPOV violation, pushing the idea that Hamas was forced in some what to violently take over Gaza while throwing people off buildings"
 * You all question Rose. Consensus draws on what RS state also, and the RS evidence is that Rose's article is widely accepted in scholarly sources. Secondly, it clearly states that Hamas preempted a coup backed by the US/Israel. The continuous effort to deny this against the RS evidence indicates that polioy has nothing to do with the removals.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In the article you wrote this is "widely cited". Was that in the sources you provided or just your OR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we have addressed ONUS by provided specific proof that VF made a specific policy change to include political commentary and that the chief editor engaged Pulitzer prize winners and investigative journalists to resource such a change, and furthermore that Rose was a respected and awarded author judged to be in the top-10 in his field, plus given the complete lack of challenge of these credentials, I submit that restoration of the reverts based on VF and Rose allegedly being poor quality source, has achieved consensus. Furthermore, concerning UNDUE, all text resulting from Rose's newly revealed (April 2008) confidential documentation, whether directly or in rebuttal of prior perceptions, can now be rejected as a justification for excluding any such text. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ONUS requires you to get consensus. The only way to "address" it is to get consensus. If you don't like the consensus forming here, you can start an RfC or use other DR methods available. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret the Wiki protocol. WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The core element is "disputed content". Let us take an example from above:
 * "Rose has been shown above to have excellent credentials. Vanity Fair was shown to have made a focused addition of political reporting to its repertoire. It was shown to have recruited Pulitzer prise winners and other seasoned investigative journalists for this purpose. Despite numerous challenges by Nableezy and Nishidani to provide WP:RS to the contrary, all that was served up has been anecdotal unsubstantiated subjective claims - the very antithesis of Wiki quality goals ... utterly shameful debating. Not a word has emerged to challenge the encyclopaedic value of VF's game-changing revelations from classified documentation."
 * Therefore given the lack of quality response to the explanations offered under WP:ONUS in support of the VF source, there is no longer any dispute regarding Rose or VF and 'ONUS' falls away. Additionally, at various times Nableezy and Nishidani have asked for justification for certain unsubstantiated statements. Nothing substantively sourced was forthcoming. Hence there too 'ONUS' falls away. Regarding 'Israeli policy' various sources of high quality were provided in compliance with ONUS. A source was asked of you for your alleged rebuttal. You provided nothing. Therefore 'ONUS'can no longer apply - nothing is being substantively disputed in that case either. So I can only conclude that the oppositions have been deliberately avoiding consensus, in other words guilty of WP:UNRESPONSIVE which means that the 'ONUS seekers' have put an insurmountable block in the way of consensus, yet continue to claim that this needs to be achieved. Remember, Wiki is not a ballot - contributions to discussion need to be substantive. Therefore, given the degree of unresponsiveness to sourced explanations following 'ONUS' challenges, I believe we will deadlock if future reverts or reinstatings of text are also deleted and then we will indeed need to resort to RFC. As an inconsistently present editor (health) and one with no experience in third party dispute resolution, I will defer to and  for confirmation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Invoking WP:SILENCE on the issue of Read and VF being reliable sources, on the basis of no further challenge/dispute or response to various requests for RS evidence. All text related to Rose's 'Gaza Bombshell' will as a result be reinstated, plus providing the right to use that source as WP:RS on other related Wiki articles dealing with the 2006 Hamas victory and the prevention of the right to democratic governance over the entire PA territories by an alliance of Israel/Fatah/U.S., the Hamas-Fatah conflict, and other revelations from VS's confidential document exposure in the article Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here. I suggest you launch a RfC if you wish to insert this Islamist narrative to the article. This is a question of WP:BALASP - most sources do not present the Hamas/Fatah battle in these terms - and this is true years after the VF article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly that is a fucking ridiculous comment. We are not talking about religion, we are talking about a political party. It is not an 'Islamicist' perspective to state the fact that it won the elections, and, when efforts by outside powers were made to disrupt the results, Hamas mounted a counter/preventive coup. That is an historical narrative, not a religious spin, also for the fact that, if you had followed closely the literature, this narrative is in Western reportage, not as Hamas's view, but as that of external observers with no Islamic axe to grind. Clean up your act. You shouldn't be editing here if you hold the article to ransom by confusing religious and historical narratives, two different genres.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz is correct on all counts, and weren't you warned repeatedly against this kind of ridiculously aggressive response? You're the one who should be cleaning up their act. Nobody can "hold an article to ransom". Open an RfC and whatever issue there is will be sorted in 30 days. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Islamism (and Islamist as an adjective) is a political movement (indeed influenced by Islam) - not a religion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Islamist narrative, are you serious? Thats just asinine. NPOV requires all significant views to be included. If you wish to include that Fatah was routed from Gaza you must, per NPOV, include the well sourced material on it being the result of a US/Israeli supported coup. This is not an Islamist narrative, and the completely bogus efforts to relegate what western sources say happened as though it were some Hamas conspiracy theory is, given edits elsewhere, unsurprising but thankfully unsupported by the policies of the website. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting 'Islamicist' everywhere in association with Hamas is an egregious example of with a POV stereotype, identical to pushing the use orf 'Zionist' every time an Israeli institution is used.  Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that Read and VF's credentials have been amply demonstrated. Nonetheless, NMNG evokes 'non-consensus'. This sounds like obfuscation to me; unjustified denial of NPOV. Additionally, the previously confidential documentation that Read/VF exposed is critical to understand why Hamas was denied its right to govern, that a coup was planned against it, and puts a notably different perspective on the claim that it was Hamas who instigated a coup or overthrow. This clearly goes beyond trivial importance - in other words anything but UNDUE. The entry of these details and their valuable balancing information is being denied by deletions based on subjective judgements. I agree with - an RFC is called for to allow the reinstatement of the insights provided by the uncovered documents into Wiki. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC) On second thoughts, given the establishment of the VF/Read credentials, I will contribute further from these sources to the article. If reverted given the justifications already provided under ONUS, then tendentious editing will have been demonstrated and further steps taken. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts by and  were 'justified' by claims that WP:ALLEGED prohibits this term; also is a weasel word. I disagree with both views. "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate". So, if there are indications of inaccuracy in the IDF claim, then alleged is perfectly in order. I will add data/sources to establish this to be the case. Weasel-word is a weasel word. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC) WP:ALLEGED

Blind reverting
Yaniv, unrelated to the Gaza war. This is, if not sheer prevarication, a blind revert, meaning that you hadn't read the article, which is, to the contrary, deals with the background leading up to the 2008-2009 Gaza war, and cites the precipitating event in 4 Nov, then analyses the historic statistics for ceasefire violations, concluding:'a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.' (Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki, 'Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End,' Huffington post 02/06/2009  )

Since this is one of many false edit summaries you have made recently, I suggest in your own interests that you revert it. Otherwise it looks worthy of an AE report, because the pattern is now reinforced.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gaza War not mentioned, therefore WP:Synth. Besides, those biased statistics don't include, for example, Palestinian shootings and suicide bombings during the Intifada. I don't see a reason why it should stay in article. Perhaps we could add a more balanced statement about the Second Intifada in the background?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yaniv is WP:NOTHERE and they will never change because they are on a crusade. The second paragraph says "the current Israeli invasion of Gaza" and the third paragraph says "the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero". His or her only purpose is Israeli apologetics, you are wasting your time engaging them in discussion. 2600:1700:1111:5940:57E:7B26:30FB:2066 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing wth Y. I am notifying him that he wittingly, even after warnings and proof, persists in distorting sources, and falsifying edit summaries.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * } quote from above: "Gaza war not mentioned" An absolute fabrication as spotted. Duly noted. I agree totally that a pattern has been well and truly established of tendentious editing, and not only by Yaniv. I have a 4 month record of them if required.Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Itr is important to keep track, but in the appropriate arbitrating forums, evidence from way back is stale, and only evidence of a persistent recent pattern of abuse is accepted. If I knew how to format a report, I'd personally do so. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Antiquity is absolutely not an issue. The examples all relate to the recent balancing according to WP:BIAS of the overtly pro-Israeli 'flavour' of the article Gaza War (2008-09) and related 'sub-articles'. Nableezy was also fully involved and informed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2019
Please change "until a blast on a Gaza beach, attributed by it to IDF naval shelling, all but wiped out a local Gaza family" to "until IDF naval shelling hit a Gaza beach, all but wiping out a local Gazan family"

The source of the blast is not in doubt, as the NYT article makes clear. The IDF state that the shell missed, but acknowledge that it was their shell. Bad revolting stars (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   13:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

failed verification?
From CRS:"Violence had already resumed in the waning days of the cease-fire. After an Israeli raid on November 4 (ostensibly aimed at preventing Hamas’s use of tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers), rocket fire on Israel resumed with greater intensity from Gaza. Some analysts speculated that the cross-border skirmishes and rocket fire that continued into December represented jockeying by both Israel and Hamas for more favorable renegotiating positions as the cease-fire’s December 19 expiration approached. On the 19th, Hamas issued a statement on its website that “The cease-fire is over and there will not be a renewal because the Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions.” On December 24, approximately 88 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza, followed by another 44 on December 25. The magnitude of this assault—although it did not cause casualties—apparently prompted the Israeli leadership’s decision to launch the December 27 air strike and larger offensive" From the news analysis article (not an opinion piece) on al-Jazeera:"The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled 'Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report,' confirmed that the June 19 truce was only 'sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... 'rogue terrorist organisations'. Instead, 'the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement' occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day. According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions."What exactly failed verification here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there has been no response I will be removing the tags. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "÷subsequent to what Hamas stated was a unilateral Israeli violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier." where does the CRS source say anything about that Hamas said this was in response to "violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier"? In fact does the other source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source has a quote from Hamas, The cease-fire is over and there will not be a renewal because the Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions. The second source says Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day. Here is the Guardian saying In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce". "The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said. What exactly has failed verification here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still no mention of "violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier". I shall reword.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely unacceptable that information in the lead is sourced to an opinion piece which does not even reference it. I previously tried to remove this, and Nableezy promptly reverted it. Do not restore this information without discussing it here or supplying a proper source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That isnt an opinion piece, it was discussed here, additional sourcing has been provided, and I am reverting you once more. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The current wording provides only a quote from Hamas and glosses over a complex issue. Further issues:


 * You are repeatedly restoring the "stated goal" language, in direct contradiction of WP:SAY. A "stated goal" suggests an "unstated goal." If a source says that an organization's goal was X, it is editorializing to suggest that this is not the actual reason.
 * High quality sources like this one from the NYT describes how the raid that Hamas alleges broke the ceasefire was a measure to destroy tunnels being used for an "imminent attack." NPOV requires that we present both sides that have been reported on this issue, not selectively omit facts in favor of one.


 * My reading of that article is that it started with Israeli entry into the tunnel.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally, you need to stop blanket reverting on this and other I/PA pages. Other editors are allowed to raise valid issues and make changes without you acting as a firewall to any improvements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece is entirely unreliable as a source for any facts, especially in the lead. You should not have restored this citation.


 * Improvements are one thing, just deleting stuff you don't like is something else.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, this sentence, The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law., is obvious WP:SYNTH. It is from a separate source and its placement suggests that actions on the Israeli side were considered illegal and did not discriminate between civilian/military targets. You need a source specifically saying this, and we need to remove the reference to the other that does not mention it at all. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I read that as being applicable to both the rocket attacks and the response.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it the same way, but that's not my issue. See WP:SYNTH. We need a source applying that definition to this particular context. See WP:SYNTH. We can't just describe a set of events and then juxtapose that with a definition that WP editors think is applicable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, it's pretty much boiler plate language. You can find it in here for example which is all about Cast Lead https://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/71266f7cd47bbdea85257615004d8635 I'm reasonably certain that a search under Goldstone would throw up sources using similar language as well.Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact the source given further down the lead could just as well be used http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8257301.stm Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If sources say that there were human rights violations, that's acceptable, but that's a separate issue that including a reference to a generic definition. In addition, note that the sources you are providing are dated, and referencing a since-disavowed report by the UN (The Goldstone Report). See here: NYT piece in 2011 on Goldstone Report. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been disavowed lol, Goldstone wrote he doesnt believe some of the conclusions, every other contributor responded that they do. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the material this thread is about is not sourced to an opp-edd piece.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we say stated goal because reliable sources say that there were indeed unstated goals and describe the goals that the IDF and the Israeli government publicly stated as their "stated goals". Please read WP:SAY. The BBC for example reports it as "The Israelis say they attacked in order to stop the firing of rockets into Israel." To accept as fact what the sources report as the view of one of the antagonists here violates WP:NPOV. And actually read your sources. The NYT article says that an Israeli military official says that the the tunnel was ready for an “imminent” operation. Please do not make things up. Finally, a news analysis piece is not an opinion piece. You should try to internalize the point that because a source says things you do not like does not make it an "opinion piece" that you can disqualify on your own say-so. Besides, there are two other sources there, or are you not paying attention to the material you are blindly removing? Ill add another source to satisfy your objection, but per WP:LEAD that isnt needed to be sourced in the lead as the same material appears later in the article. And if you werent paying attention, that line is in that paragraph because it discusses accusations of indiscriminate attacks by both sides here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , See below:

I suggest you "internalize" that other input about content is not always a matter of "not liking" something. You should respond to my and others' issues with the content. The edits that you restored to the page are sloppy in their use of language and sources and includes unacceptable POV-slanted editorializing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dressing up the piece by Mark LeVine in Al Jazeera as "news analysis" is meaningless, and also incorrect. Mark LeVine is not a reporter at Al Jazeera, the (opinion) piece represents the views and restatements of facts of a single author, not an editorial board (See the disclaimer "The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of Al Jazeera"), and it is not a reliable source for statements of facts.
 * The sources do not suggest an "unstated goal," that's apparently your interpretation, see WP:OR. If you can provide a source suggesting an "unstated goal," then do so, otherwise, do not restore that language again. The quote you provided from BBC does not suggest an "unstated goal," and this article shouldn't either.
 * You did not address the obvious WP:SYNTH issue in your screed above with the human rights violation report, you have just ignored it and included it in your blanket revert.
 * The line from the NYT is The [Hamas] tunnel was ready for an “imminent” operation, the [Israeli] official said.. In other words, an imminent attack. My characterization of the source is correct.
 * Here is a link. You see the section it is in? News. See the CRS source. See the Guardian source. As far as "stated goal". See for example NYTimes: Israel’s stated goal was to destroy the infrastructure of Hamas, The Atlantic: The declared goal of Israel's air and naval strikes on Gaza is to stop the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas from launching rockets that have targeted southern Israel for years. You dont get to insert as fact what sources attribute as the publicly stated view of one of the belligerents. Now, SYNTH. The Amnesty source discussing the law on distinction is about this topic. And no, your portrayal of the NYTimes here is not accurate, you claimed that the tunnel was being used for an imminent attack, the NYTimes says that an Israeli military official says that it was ready for an imminent attack. Again, we do not accept as fact what the source reports as an allegation. Get it this time? What SYNTH? Who are these nebulous others that I need to respond to? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll accept "stated goal" with the sources you provided. However, the Al Jazeera piece is not news, regardless of whatever category on its website where you find it, because it is written by an outside contributor, not a member of the Al Jazeera staff, and the disclaimer on that piece explicitly states that the author's opinions do not represent those of Al Jazeera. If Al Jazeera's editorial board did not exercise control over the content of the piece or review it for factual accuracy, then it is basically an opinion piece and accorded the same level of reliability. If the Israeli government offered a justification for the raid on the tunnel, that should be indicated in the lead, rather than simply providing a quote from Hamas. We should also not be making use of primary sources like reports from UN investigations -- these can be replaced by secondary sources which are more accessible and add an additional layer of verification. I am also restoring the tags -- this lead still strikes me as unbalanced in the areas I identified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: the SYNTH issue — Noting what constitutes a human rights violation is SYNTH if it is not from a source applying that definition/rule in this particular context. The line The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law. is not accompanied by any sources doing that, except for one citation which references an incident involving two soldiers being sentenced in Israeli military court. Using these three sources in conjunction, two just providing basic definitions and a third referencing an isolated incident, to suggest widespread human rights violations is clear WP:SYNTH and should not have been restored. This line warrants immediate removal, and I suggest you partial-revert on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * lol, sure. See Mark LeVine. See that for example he is the author of Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine, published by University of California Press. See, even if this were a self-published piece that it would be perfectly acceptable as a source per WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Even if Levine put this up on a blog on geocities it would be acceptable to use as a reliable source. And, hello, there are several other sources there. And have you even looked at the AI paper? Because there's a section titled PROHIBITION ON INDISCRIMINATE OR DISPROPORTIONATE ATTACKS, and it reads (pp. 15-16)"Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, which are those: “of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.” Israel’s firing of artillery into densely populated civilian areas in Gaza may amount to indiscriminate attacks. Prior to the current fighting there had been many cases of civilians in Gaza killed by inaccurate shelling. Israel itself appeared to acknowledge that its use of artillery was unacceptably risky when it announced that it had suspended artillery shelling into Gaza in November 2006, after artillery shelling killed 18 members of a family in Beit Hanoun, in northern Gaza, which the Israeli army later stated had been launched in error. Artillery and mortar attacks and shelling from tanks and from naval ships has proved to be insufficiently accurate to pinpoint targets among densely populated residential areas in Gaza. Israel has a considerable arsenal of advanced weaponry and has an obligation to choose means of attack that minimizes the risk to civilians. (See section 1.3.4, Precautions in attack.) Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have been firing indiscriminate rockets at Israeli population centres, killing three Israeli civilians since 27 December 2008 and injuring others. Even if they intend to attack military installations in Israel, using these weapons, which cannot be accurately targeted, violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack. Disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, are also those that: “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” (Article 51(5b) of Additional Protocol I) Israel has bombed civilian homes in Gaza, claiming that it was targeting military leaders of Hamas. Some attacks on homes of Hamas leaders have killed dozens of civilians, even though it should have been apparent to Israeli forces that the target of attack was not likely to be present or that civilians were likely to be killed in the attack. Intentionally launching a disproportionate attack is a war crime. Launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is also a war crime. In addition, the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime."Please actually read the sources cited. Thanks in advance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then instead of just reciting the fact that "indiscriminate fire is illegal under international law," the article should indicate what the report says above: that Hamas assaults were indiscriminate, and the Israeli attacks may have been indiscriminate. An isolated definition of what the international community believes tells the reader nothing substantive and conveys information only by inference.

Regarding Mark LeVine, a professor with a limited body of work, even if we accept him as an "expert" meeting WP:SELFPUB, which we would have to in order to use that piece, it is ridiculous to assert that an opinion piece is the best source available for the factual record of a complex issue that was the subject of international attention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It isnt an opinion piece jesus christ. And even if it were it is still a perfectly usable source. And there are other sources cited! And lol to that interesting interpretation of Amnesty. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Mark LeVine clearly WP:UNDUE and can't be used --Shrike (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Afaics, Mark Levine has not been used directly in support of the article text (although I cannot see any reason not to, if attributed). The ref is given there more by way of additional verification of the material which has been taken from the Congressional report. In other words, removing the ref would not change the article text at all but that was not what was done, the article text and all three sources were just removed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE implies there is some equally or more reliable source that disputes what Levine says. Where are they? Because right now its just two random people on the internet not liking what the source says, and that has been and will remain a completely ignorable objection. Beyond that, again, there are additional sources for this material. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are other sources for what Mark LeVine says, I suggest you find them and insert them into the article, because this author is obviously is unsuited for the lead as providing a factual basis for anything at least in the AJ piece. A professor with a couple of books writing a contributed article ("news analysis" or "opinion" is irrelevant, it doesn't benefit from Al Jazeera reliability). And the Hamas quote is a waste of space -- it should be replaced by the background information offered by the NYT (see what a reliable source and secondary news reporting actually is). The primary sources also need to be replaced by secondary sources. This lead has multiple areas that need improvement, none of which are "ignorable." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus H Christ, they are already there and cited. Your not liking what a reliable source, and guess what Levine in Al-Jazeera is exactly that, says is indeed ignorable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Al Jazeera's reliability does not apply to the LeVine piece. It is a contributed article not subject to editorial fact checking or review. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:SPS. Ill even quote it for you since the first time didnt take. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. An established expert in the relevant field whose work has previously been published by a reliable source. Levine himself is a reliable source, full stop. And hello, there are several other sources already cited there. Get it this time? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, more policy. WP:REPUTABLE: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. There is quite literally no personal opinion of Levine here anyway, and this wikilawyer-esque objection has no basis in policy. None. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is very simple: There are far better sources available on the factual record that the lead gives an overview of than a contributed online article by Mark LeVine. WP:SPS. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Even if we accept Mark LeVine as an "established expert" based on a limited body of published work (which does not include the source under discussion), there are almost certainly better sources available. Furthermore, he is making an argument in that piece — an objective evaluation of the facts is superior when the purpose of the lead is to summarize facts. Example of a better source: . If you want to include Mark LeVine elsewhere in the article, by all means do so, but the lead requires something more. This doesn't even address the over-reliance on primary source reports in several paragraphs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then find a better source that disputes him. Read WP:UNDUE. It does not allow for the mental gymnastics that you performing here. The NYTimes source you brought very obviously cannot be used to relate that strike to this topic because, duh, it was published before it. Levine does so, and he is perfectly fine for that purpose. Nothing in any policy supports your position that Levine cannot be used in the lead. Not. One. Thing. Ive quoted policy that explicitly allows for using Levine. You have simply made objections that have no basis in policy, and as a result I see no reason to continue entertaining you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Finding the best quality sources for a complex set of facts has everything to do with policy. Even if LeVine meets the bare minimum for reliability, it is ridiculous to argue that one of his contributed articles represents the best possible source to provide in the lead. The use of this source is disputed, and the The Guardian citation is adequate for that line; therefore, it is unnecessary to keep LeVine in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have quoted policy, you have not. Try reading the policies and the sources before you say remove a book published by Routledge and substitute it with a 12 year old newspaper article, and in so doing mangle what the article even says. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Quoting policy" is meaningless when you don't apply it. I suggest you take a look where Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. comes from, which I cited earlier. My edit did not "mangle" the NYT source - the date was in fact June, not July, all that was required was a correction of the month, not wholesale removal. WP:PRESERVE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have applied them. Stop pinging me. I pretty obviously have this page watchlisted. And in case you havent noticed, I object to more than the date. But what a refreshing note on WP:PRESERVE lol. Maybe try implementing that instead of removing academic sources that dispute your favored narrative. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of this article
I just removed a paragraph that sought to explain how Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire." This is a line pulled from a report that simultaneously acknowledges Hamas violations of the ceasefire. The NYT reported violations by Hamas that summer. These are blatant misrepresentations or errors that I suspect are the result of bad sources. This may be a widespread problem in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the line is pulled from and it is quoted below. Kindly desist with these trash edits. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Check your attitude, as well as the report. That line is pulled from several pages of the report. I'm not buying this interpretation that's being supported by a limited range of possibly questionable sources, or the way the narrative is presented in the article that "Hamas abided by the ceasefire - until they didn't, but then it was Israel's fault." Here is a NYT report on a November violation of the report. I think the claim that Hamas "carefully abided the ceasefire" is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and seems highly questionable given the group's long history of random attacks on civilians/terrorism. That "book" is a collection of short essays and the author you cite as supporting this notion that Hamas maintained the ceasefire is a little-known professor. Everyone knows that books on the I/P conflict sells, so every supposed "expert" has one or two books floating around out there, and I think we should be applying extra scrutiny when they offer factual accounts that seem to conflict with news reports and common knowledge about how some of these groups operate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to challenge the reliability of you are free to do so. WP:RSN is thataway. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why your doubt about a little known professor means nothing here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Go to WP:RSN" is a common refrain but not really responsive to the issue I'm raising here. Again, I think that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies here and that we need particularly reliable, high-quality sources confirming that this was the case. It seems there is some reporting that throws this narrative of the careful adherence of the ceasefire by Hamas into question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a particularly reliable and high quality source. And just for fun, here's another: * You want to challenge a book published by Stanford University Press too? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Re the ceasefire pre Cast Lead
https://sderotmedia.com/rocket-and-mortar-hits-launched-from-gaza-2001-2014/2993/ The graphic shows very clearly what happened:

1)Between 19 June and 4 November, 38 rockets total (cf 1 Jan to 18 Jun, 2262).

2)Between 5 November and 19 December (after "IDF preemptive attack") 336 rockets.

3)The week after 20 December (end of ceasefire) and start of Cast Lead 161 rockets.

That the ceasefire was mostly observed is obvious, the rockets started up again after the IDF action.

Trying to portray this as Hamas breaches of the ceasefire is nonsense.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 38 rockets fired is not "the ceasefire was mostly observed" - every single rocket fired was a violation. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, first of all, Selfstudier, I would question your interpretative skills here, and second, none of this is relevant, because your analysis of primary source information is WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OR is permitted in talk .Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of you ( and ) stop with the sniping and bickering.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the redaction. Let's keep things civil. OR is permitted on talk, but our time is better spent on the reliable sources that have covered this. I don't really see much use in a debate among editors over who violated the ceasefire. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

recent edits
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Goldstone report is not "disavowed". It is not a primary source. It remains the official report of the UN Fact Finding Mission, which was not a party to this conflict and their report is not a primary source. It is attributed when cited. The mass removal of that is absurd.
 * A user changed Hamas stated its rocket fire was in response to Israeli military actions in violation of a ceasefire, saying the "Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions." to Hamas stated its rocket fire was in response to Israeli raids of Hamas-built tunnels, which were considered violations of the ceasefire. In doing so, the user removes the CRS source, and along with doing that distorts what the Guardian reports. What the Guardian actually says is"A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory. Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm. Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said. One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon."Not that there were raids of tunnels, but raids in to Gaza, and nowhere does any source say that last bit about which were considered violations of the ceasefire. That is simply invented.
 * July 2008 - those rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad, a bit that the user saw fit to leave out in attempting to remove what qualified sources say about Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire later on, cited to a book published by Routeledge, which contains the following bit on p 120:"it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launcehd a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokeperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'"
 * If it wasn't serious, it would be funny. Editor introduces a NYT source dated June and claims that it covers July as well as otherwise cherrypicking the source (which dates from a few days after the ceasefire began and which is likely the only thing he could find because Hamas by and large, did observe the ceasefire for months eg http://www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/514498 "But, late last June, under Egyptian mediation, the Israeli government reached a ceasefire agreement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Since then, with only a few violations, the rocket salvoes from Gaza have stopped." Then editor realizes Levine wasn't actually being used for the sentence he disapproved of so deleted yet another source, a congressional report this time, in order to allow deletion of "unnecessary" (according to him). Deletes multiple other sources, claiming they are "faulty"?? There is no real intent to improve the article, the emphasis is on making Israel look less bad and Hamas look worse, POV editing, pure and simple.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERCITE. If it's not necessary to support information in the lead, it doesn't need to be there. That includes primary sources like "reports" and contributed opinion/analysis pieces that do not offer anything factual. The NYT piece was not "cherry picked" -- it presents relevant information about a violation of the ceasefire, which is the subject of the paragraph in question. The goal is to ensure the article is balanced—you can call that "POV editing," but maybe you should consider self-reflection before accusing others. I further suggest you not follow Nableezy's lead conduct-wise and WP:AGF. I'll address the other wholesale reverts momentarily, because Nableezy undid a lot more than what he's noting above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe while youre at it explain why you removed the material on Hamas observing the ceasefire? That be great, thanks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikieditor, if you perhaps refrained from mass deletions, then mass reverting wouldn't be necessary. And why not take potentially controversial edits one at a time? It is difficult sometimes to separate out any useful edit in the middle of all the other and frankly, we shouldn't have to trawl through a mini mountain of edits to ascertain what you have done? I don't know why it is in there precisely but there is a clear exhortation written into the lead asking specifically that edits to the lead be agreed in talk first, I suspect it is because this article has been subject of past controversies. And yet you pay absolutely no attention to it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats been there for like 12 years now. But it is not that he or she is not paying attention to it, he or she is also removing that note entirely. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "mass deletions" is an exaggeration, but we can agree to disagree. I'll try to move a bit slower with the reverts, but it would also take almost no time at all to do a quick review of my changes and revert only the ones you raised a direct issue with, rather than a wholesale revert. Some of my changes to the section on the use of child shields, such as how several Israeli soldiers were sentenced in Israeli court for the practice, were also removed, along with the sources supporting this information. The paragraph is written as if to suggest Israel condones the practice. Furthermore:


 * Any mention of the Goldstone report should not be 100% deferential and should be qualified with the fact that its author later walked back some of its accusations, namely that Israeli intentionally targeted civilians, among other prominent criticisms.


 * That was, and still is, in the lead, so I don't understand this objection.Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This narrative that Hamas carefully abided the ceasefire is not sitting right with me. If I'm wrong, then I'll accept it, but I think this is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and I'd like to find a few very, very high quality sources confirming that this is the case. Here is another article showing a November violation by Hamas. Again, this is something I'd like to do further research into. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The report did not have an author, it had several members of a fact finding mission. Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers all were part of that team. I do not care what sits right with you. If you would like to challenge any of the sources cited then please go to WP:RSN and explain how your discomfort with what scholarly sources say means we should defer to your favored narrative. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I added back the sourced material re convictions.Selfstudier (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does the article claim that Hamas "carefully abided" the ceasefire? See the rocket counts in the below section (from Sderot, not lovers of Hamas). It is perfectly clear what happened. The Israeli narrative has been that it is Hamas who is responsible for launches no matter who makes them, but it is likely not true that Hamas is in a position to stop them all. In the crucial months before the tunnel incident there were only a few rockets so it is unreasonable to put forward a position that Hamas was breaching the ceasefire.Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My "favored narrative" is the correct one. Scholarship is susceptible to error resulting from bias or faulty interpretation just like any other source, and it's appropriate to give those sources heightened scrutiny if something doesn't seem right or there is conflicting information out there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikieditor19920 is correct here, and actual scholars writing in a book published by Routledge are wrong. Give whatever scrutiny you like, the book is on its face reliable and of a much higher quality than a 12 year old news article that oh by the way doesnt even support what you want to use it for. If you would like to challenge an obviously reliable source feel free, but the place to do that is WP:RSN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two articles from The New York Times, a newspaper which you may or may not have heard of, that reported violations of the ceasefire on the side of Hamas. On the other hand, we compare that with a short description of events by a scholar with a WP:BIAS and point of view on the matter. Who's narrative is going to be more reliable? And are you suggesting that either article has been subject to a correction, or are we now instituting a ban on sources not published in the last five years? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG for why scholarly books and articles are preferred over decade old news reports. Pay particularly close attention to the line Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. And by the way, the second NYT article postdates the Israeli incursion that the scholarly sources say broke the ceasefire. The June one says that the rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad. And neither of those is higher quality than a book published by Routledge or one published by Stanford Univeristy Press. Again, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG for why. Twelve years later, this is no longer news, which is what newspapers should generally be used for. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way period contemporary news reports can trump later scholarship. Contemporary news articles are employed only of necessity, when an event breaks out requiring coverage. As soon as the furor of spinning dies down, and scholarship kicks in, we should where possible reformulate the text to reflect the wisdom of hindsight and research.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The "contemporary news reports" are from the NYT, probably the most reliable available news source in the world, not only for fact-checking but for issuing later corrections if a story is later learned to be inaccurate. No such correction was issued here. This is not automatically "trumped" because it is contradicted by a few individual scholars whose works may or may not be as rigorously fact-checked. Nableezy can continue to offensively accuse me of "pushing a narrative," but there is a factual dispute here between sources. This should be noted in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:NEWSORG: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Generally. Not always. When the NYT reports events a certain way, in direct contradiction of opinionated scholars, that's something to take note of. It seems that the NYT did not characterize the raid of the tunnel as a breach of the ceasefire, whereas these scholars did. Both acknowledge that the Hamas response was a violation of the ceasefire. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that argument at RSN if you ever want to make it. As it stands, there are multiple academic sources that support the material in the article. A 12 year old NYTimes article doesnt change that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue for RSN, this is an issue for this article. Two sources can both be reliable, apparently they drew different interpretations. The age of the NYT article(s) does nothing to diminish its reliability. WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't myself have a problem with dated sources, I thought that was your thing. You consistently fail to distinguish between the "official" ceasefire term of 6 months and the de facto end of it following the tunnel incident after which the ceasefire was honored only in the degree of its breach and Israeli unwillingness to implement the original terms of it. The inescapable facts remain that between 19 June and the IDF attack the ceasefire was more or less complied with by Hamas while Israel is considered by the sources to have materially breached the ceasefire leading to its de facto end.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if your primary focus is on the ceasefire, a better article to discuss that in would be the 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, it's just a summary of that in here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My focus is on this article, in which the ceasefire is a central event. The problem is the article omits key points of view and presents WP:PARTISAN sources as if they are the only authoritative view on the matter, and tries to bully other editors out of any desire to participate, but that's a separate and possibly future ANI issue. There is a clear contradiction here; the NYT attributes the break in ceasefire to Hamas, while a number of scholars highly critical of Israel (whose views may also be reliable) offer a differing interpretation and suggest Israel's actions were the first to violate it. The article must present both of these interpretations in order to be in compliance with NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed this tendentiously placed tag. First, I restored the missing info previously about the human shields, see above, so that is false. You have no consensus to argue that a 12 year old NYT article outweighs all the scholarly and third party RS to the contrary. I am filing an appropriate notice to your talk page, I suggest you leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing a tag unilaterally and immediately is what's tendentious when I've identified a legitimate basis for it. Earlier you said the age of the piece wasn't an issue, not all of a sudden it is. An older article from a reliable source is just as dependable as any other, and it directly contradicts some other sources on this page. At the very least, it is a reliable viewpoint that is not represented—it does not have to outweigh other scholarship—which is also not all scholarship. Kindly restore the tag and do not remove it again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You havent identified a legitimate basis for anything. Here is what your source says:"The confrontations, following five months of relative calm, began to spike this month when the Israeli military destroyed a tunnel being dug toward Israel. The army feared that the tunnel would be used to seize an Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for more than two years. The Israelis said it was an isolated operation, not a violation of the cease-fire agreed to in June, and asked Egypt to pass that message to Hamas in advance. But six Hamas militants were killed during the tunnel’s destruction, leading Hamas to retaliate with rockets, which led to more closings and operations and then more rockets."The other Times article says a rocket attack in the first few days was claimed by PIJ, not Hamas. And either way, neither of those dispute that Hamas had, as reported by several sources, adhered to the ceasefire. Nothing in them disputes that. And finally, yes, scholarship years removed is much more preferred to a news article on something that is no longer news. Im sorry that point has not been well taken, but feel free to query NPOV/N or RS/N on the weight each of these sources carry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The confrontations, following five months of relative calm, began to spike this month when the Israeli military destroyed a tunnel being dug toward Israel. The army feared that the tunnel would be used to seize an Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for more than two years. The Israelis said it was an isolated operation, not a violation of the cease-fire agreed to in June, and asked Egypt to pass that message to Hamas in advance. But six Hamas militants were killed during the tunnel’s destruction, leading Hamas to retaliate with rockets, which led to more closings and operations and then more rockets. This is from this NYT article. These pieces documenting the series of events & possible violations/explanations offered by both sides gives valuable and important context and is derived from a standard and widely used reliable source. There is no reason to omit this information and these valuable sources because there are also scholars who have written about the conflict. This is not an issue for RSN, it is a matter of representing all views published in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Blowing the tunnel that killed people was the first act of kinetic violence, complicated by the advanced warning, and unilateral declaration of not a cease-fire violation. Building the tunnel in the first place was threatening/trolling but not violent "fire". Where you draw the line is hopelessly entangled. Probably why NYT did not assert anything, and why historians have overall stayed away from taking a strong position. As we can see it escalated into a disruption of the peace, but unclear if it was technically a violation of an agreement, and even if so who was at fault.  --  Green  C  20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * These pieces documenting the series of events & possible violations/explanations offered by both sides gives valuable and important context is OR. And the NYT does not anywhere say that Hamas violated the ceasefire. That is likewise OR to make that conclusion. Beyond that, yes, 12 year old news articles should not be used for things that are no longer news when it is now the subject of actual scholarship. Our policies are clear on that. If you feel there is a weight issue here then take it to NPOV/N. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with . - this is a complex issue. The tunnel was raided as an offensive threat, Hamas claims that it was used for defensive or other purposes. Of course, whether this is to be believed is in question. It's also a complicated issue of whether a pre-emptive strike, even if justified, violates a cease-fire.
 * , the NYT no one has disputed that they are contemporary w/ the events in question so you don't need to keep repeating yourself about the dates of the NYT pieces. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are "news" -- the NYT offers a reliable accounting of facts that remains consistent to what's been reported to this day, they only differ slightly on the interpretation (they are more neutral). You have also presented no actual reasoning as to why these are not reliable sources that should be represented in the article (yet, of course, you have no problem with using apparently dated opinion/contributed pieces for factual background in the lead). What both NYT pieces confirm is that the violation of the ceasefire is not the straightforward issue that the article presents it as, based on a limited number of WP:PARTISAN scholars have asserted. We should strive for a better balance here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You just saying that the authors are partisan does not make it so. Quote what exactly from the NYT confirm(s) that the violation of the ceasefire is not the straightforward issue that the article presents it as. Your say so does not make it so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See the quote from the NYT above and this article. The scholars that you provided are making an argument and criticizing Israel's actions. This makes them WP:PARTISAN because they have staked out an opinionated position and their analysis/argumentation reflects that. The same would be true for scholars arguing the opposite and critical of Hamas/Palestinian groups. The NYT is an objective recounter of fact, even if they are subject to implicit bias, and can be used for that purpose in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, quote what exactly from the NYT says anything about Hamas violating the ceasefire. An actual quote please. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to briefly say these events happened: a tunnel was built, IDF gave advanced warning then blew it up, 7 people died, there was retaliation and counter-retaliation. Without asserting either side violated a cease fire. -- Green  C  21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible to say that but the weight of all the sources says that Israel is the cause of the ceasefire breaking down. That is also what this article has said for years. A single NYT press article contradicted by multiple sources just doesn't cut it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"....broken by Israel on 4 November......Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire...."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/is-hamas-committed-to-the-ceasefire

In general, Hamas has observed the ceasefire; the number of attacks and rocket launches has decreased significantly, and Hamas has prevented other Gaza militant organizations from striking Israel.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/14/chronology-which-side-violated-israel-gaza-ceasefire

The ceasefire effectively ended after six Palestinian militants were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza force on 4 November and a barrage of Palestinians rockets were launched on nearby towns and villages in the south of Israel.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/israel-broke-ceasefire-by-killing-six-1.1276139

I have plenty more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot on the one hand dismiss the New York Times, an internationally recognized outlet for reliability/consistency, and then cite news articles from lesser known outlets that support a particular position. The fact is that multiple views are represented in reliable sources, including the NYT, and they should all be represented in the article as GreenC noted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * But WE CAN dismiss it, your single source (which post dates the ceasefire breakdown that all other sources refer to as the operative date) is contradicted directly by multiple RS, scholarly and otherwise (not to mention my OR). Your position is hopeless and endless repetition of it counts for naught. If you are so convinced of the merits of your case, then start an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have presented no basis for dismissing a factual summary of events from this particular reliable source, one of the most reliable available, except that it does not comport with a competing narrative. This is absolutely not how valid decisions are reached or reflective of NPOV. You can call my position hopeless (so much for civility) and suggest an RfC or other bureaucratic measures, but the fact is that the article would benefit from inclusion of the NYT piece, multiple editors have agreed with this, and the best way forward is to include facts laid out in the NYT with proper sourcing/attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The basis has been presented to you ad nauseum (with multiple sources), your response is repetition. I never objected to inclusion of the NYT material, just your argument that Hamas is responsible for the breakdown of the ceasefire which is patently untrue. If you want the NYT in then we should also put in all the other sources that contradict it for proper balance. Or we could just leave it the way it has been without argument for the last 12 years.Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GreenC with should state the facts and let the reader decide who broken what to push certain POV.--Shrike (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, the reliable sources cited say very clearly what broke the ceasefire. Here they are again: * * Not liking what the sources say does not make it "POV" sorry to tell you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's past time for you to stop accusing other editors of "not liking something" for supposedly illegitimate reasons. It is appropriate to give greater scrutiny to opinionated sources when we're looking for a factual summary.
 * The source above has an obvious slant: it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Israeli position with words like "alleged," accepts the Hamas position that the tunnels were defensive completely uncritically, which is questionable, and points to the Israeli pre-emptive raid as an unqualified violation. The multiple NYT pieces describe the same facts in a more circumspect manner, and so can this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. Because a source does not accept as gospel truth the Israeli government's position it means it is slanted? Quote what from the Times, again not as strong a source as actual scholarship, that disputes any part of this. Ive asked you several times and you have failed to do so. There comes a point where tendentiousness turns into disruptiveness and I think it has been a while now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from the sources already in the article, those additional sources above that I supplied, these:

https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/96858/pdf

"Until 4 November 2008, the truce had remained effective, precipitating a sharp fall in militantrocket and mortar attacks on Israel, and a loosening of Israel's blockade of Gaza's borders.On 4 November Israel launched an incursion into the Gaza Strip to close a tunnel which itclaimed was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers. Hamas maintained that the tunnel wasbuilt for defensive purposes. Six Hamas fighters were killed and four Israeli soldiers injured.Hamas stated that it considered this a serious breach of the truce and increased its rocketand mortar attacks. The truce remained nominally (my emphasis, this is what your NYT article relies on for its assertion) in force until 19 December but Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) engaged in exchanges of violence"

"...It's instructive to recall what happened next.Hamas was 'careful to maintain the ceasefire', a semi official Israeli publication conceded, despite the fact that Israel reneged on the crucial quid pro quo to substantially relax the siege of Gaza...." It notes the said semi official source, already in the article and which you earlier edited out asserting that it was "faulty"·

....Israel launched an offensive into Gaza on 4 November and closed the crossings into Gaza the followig day. This led to a hostile reaction.....

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict Pages 62 onwards (Events occurring between the "ceasefire" of 18 June 2008 .... and the start of Israel's military operations in Gaza on 27 December 2008) detail who did what on what date in detail. Noteworthy is

"254.After two months in which few incidents were reported, the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip, which Israel stated was to close a cross-border tunnel that in Israel’s view was intended to be used by Palestinian fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers."

To reiterate, you have no case. 10:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying to the unsigned comment above. The Finkelstein position is a WP:PARTISAN source from a professor denied tenure at their university. You are also missing the point entirely. The NYT and the CRS report both present an additional, alternative reliable viewpoint on a matter that is subject to interpretation. It's been established that a number of scholars regarded the Israeli raid as a violation of the ceasefire. I've presented reliable sources with an alternative view. Each warrants inclusion. WP:NPOV.
 * Let me also point out an astonishing double-standard briefly that's been made apparent on this talk page: and {{u|Nableezy} repeatedly argued for the inclusion of a contributed  piece by Mark LeVine, dated 2009, as reliable for factual information in the lead. Presented with several news articles from the NYT, which include analysis and fact-checking subject to review by the editorial board of the NYT (unlike opinion pieces), these same users object because it does not comport with the narrative they've suggested. At the same time, Nableezy has accused other editors, in violation of WP:NPA, of rejecting views they "don't like." I've never rejected that scholars in reliable sources have characterized the Israeli raid as a ceasefire violation. I've suggested that there are also alternative reliable sources with a different view. I challenge either of these editors to show me one valid distinction between the LeVine piece and the NYT that justifies inclusion of the former but not the latter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I signed it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
Multiple editors who perhaps disagree with there being an NPOV issue on this page have, instead of just voicing those concerns on this talk page, have taken to removing the tag indicating a current dispute on this talk page. This is disruptive and contradicts basic general practices regarding the use of cleanup tags. See WP:DETAG:

Some tags, such as "POV", often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

I applied the tag after raising a specific issue regarding sourcing/presentation of facts, and other editors have agreed. I have provided my rationale above. The discussion would likely benefit from further participants, which is the purpose of applying a tag. Editors who disagree need to take the this talk page and wait until there is a consensus before unilaterally removing the tag and making accusations of bad faith and dismissing other editors' valid concerns. , . Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC) I'll add that I do hope we can reach a consensus and make room for further improvements to this article; this article should not be in a perpetual state where efforts to improve portions of this page are immediately reverted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See above reply, start an RFC instead of all this messing about with pointy tags.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have been through this before. Also, you are gaming 1RR. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of you should be ignoring the guidelines for tags, because there is an ongoing discussion on this matter (see above). Tags exist for a reason; the criteria for applying the tag have clearly been met, and the criteria for removal (let alone within an hour) have not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We (3 editors so far) are as entitled as you to dispute the criteria. It is for you to convince us that your contemplated additions to a long time stable article have value and so far you have not persuaded any of us. Also why, if your argument is about the ceasefire aspect only, have you tagged the entire article and not just the appropriate section? Shall I do it for you?Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is ongoing discussion there are clear policy when the tags should be removed.Please follow the policy.--Shrike (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus for such tags, they can be removed. Wikieditor19920 was told this by an admin in another such incidence. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. The policy here is absolutely black-and-white clear that once a concern has been raised on the talk page, and a discussion is ongoing, consensus is required to remove the tag. Any admin who would made such a claim is wrong, nor do I recall such an interaction. Selfstudier is correct that you are perfectly allowed to disagree with me and any other editor. You can do so by posting your positions here on the talk page, not by unilaterally removing or moving the tag, which serves to provide notice of an ongoing discussion. Further attempts to alter the tag while there is an active discussion going on will be treated as disruptive editing. Learn to WP:AGF and acknowledge and respond to other editors' valid arguments rather than dismissing them outright. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still am waiting to hear any coherent argument from you that does not involve your endlessly repeating that your solitary NYT source outweighs all of the scholarly and other RS presented. An argument as to why we should change an article that has been stable for years just because you have dug up an article from the NYT that you only came up with when you failed to get anyone to accept your POV editing. This is not the first article where you are doing this, you adopted the same approach at State of Palestine and Trump peace plan, throwing a hissy fit when not able to push your POV through and then tagging in a fit of pique. If you do not present a valid argument or start an RFC that clearly states what it is you are trying to include in the article, I or someone else will be removing your tag which is serving no purpose whatsoever at this point other than to prolong this futile discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed direct assertions of broken ceasefire which from the above discussion seemed to be the primary concern. Does this address the tag? -- Green  C
 * Im sorry, but that just doesnt jive with what the sources report. Yes, Israel says that their raid was not a violation of the ceasefire, however reliable sources say that it was. We can include that Israel disputes that, but removing what the sources say because Israel disputes it is not what NPOV requires. I am going to restore what the sources say about this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with those two sentences, which are not even about who broke the cease fire, is they are factually stating Israel broke the cease fire, but no where else in the article is that stated, including the section that centrally discusses it. That section includes multiple POVs and the narrative presented does weight towards Israel breaking the cease fire, but we never say flat-out in the voice of Wikipedia: "Israel broke the cease fire", rather there are multiple POVs presented from which the reader can judge for themselves who or what to believe. This is how it is done when there are multiple POVs. Also honestly I looked at some of those quotes and some are a little ambiguous, it feels a bit forced. This is a difficult topic, I am not accusing anyone of bias. -- Green  C  16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources dispute what the two I've quoted above report? Israel claiming something is not a violation does not make it so that we do not report what the reliable sources state as point blank fact. We include they dispute that, but their disputing it does not negate it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What these cited scholars have argued should not be represented as "fact" either. The CRS report at the top of this page also avoids explicitly stating that Israel's initial action violated the ceasefire. Interpretations of Israel's actions as violative of the CF can be included, and attributed. Not stated as fact. The same for statements the other way, including by the Israeli govt. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat my question. What reliable sources dispute what those sources say? Quote what those sources say please. Not explicitly saying it violated the ceasefire is not disputing it, please quote reliable sources that explicitly contradict any part of the sources I have quoted. I can bring more. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There are other opinions: We have three opinions: Israel is at fault (per current article). Israel is not at fault (per IDF). Both sides at fault (per above). -- Green  C  01:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "[IDF] officials said that the initial army raid was a “pinpoint” operation aimed at thwarting a specific threat, and that Israel remained committed to the truce."
 * Encyclopedia Britannica blames both sides: "the truce was threatened shortly thereafter as each accused the other of violations"
 * Amnesty International blames both sides: "The ceasefire effectively ended after six Palestinian militants were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza force on 4 November and a barrage of Palestinians rockets were launched on nearby towns and villages in the south of Israel."
 * Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict blames both sides: first 10 lines on page 256
 * Yes indeed, the IDF says it was not a violation. The IDF is not a reliable source, they are an involved party. Britannica simply says both sides blamed the other. Amnesty does not in fact "blame both sides", it flat out says that it ended with the attack by Israeli forces in your quote. Here is another: The breakdown last week of a five-and-a-half-month ceasefire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants in Gaza has generated a renewed wave of violence. The killing of six Palestinian militants in Israeli air strikes and ground attacks on 4 November prompted a barrage of Palestinian rockets on nearby Israeli towns and villages. The last source likewise does not blame both sides, what it says is as follows: in June 2008, Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. On 4 November 2008, Israel ground and air forces attacked Hamas militants to destroy a 250-m tunnel being built under the Israel-Gaza border to enable Hamas to abduct Israelis. Hamas, in turn, fired dozens of rockets into Israel. That very much does not "blame both sides". That the IDF disputes that they broke the ceasefire does not make it so that we should not follow the reliable sources that flat out say they did. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, it is selective. We are establishing the existence of multiple POVs not an absolute truth of who is to blame. Anyway this has become tiresome. Will unfortunately need to move this to RfC. --  Green  C  08:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object to attribution (and that is certainly going to apply to anything that the IDF or Hamas has to say). I do object to source cherry picking, there are more than 20 available and the IDF is unreliable. In the case of Amnesty, you are misrepresenting the source. And Britannica is a tertiary source of even less value than WP as a source. In any case, we have scholarly sources available written long after the event and with benefit of UN investigation and other materials not available at the time and those trump the sources you give now. That's part of what I will be putting in the RFC in due course. <- Changed my mind see RFC comment.Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The IDF is not a "source." What an absurd notion. The IDF is one of the participants in the conflict. As with any viewpoint, we should include, with attribution, their statements defending or justification (linked to reliable secondary sources). If anything, the notion that Hamas carefully abided by the ceasefire is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and one requiring particularly high quality sources.
 * Finally, whether the raid violated the ceasefire or was defensive is a matter of interpretation, and that is a conclusion that, contrary to Nableezy's insinuation, none of the three sources above and multiple others (NYT included) do not unequivocally reach, instead describing the actions of both parties as responsible for the breakdown. We should never simply state as fact that Israel's actions unilaterallly violated the ceasefire and interpretations that they did must be attributed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Tagged Section
I moved the most recent version of tag placed by Wikieditor to the section he is apparently concerned with. I say apparently because up and until now, there is still no clear explanation either of what the problem is or what the editor expects to be done about it. Therefore, editor is requested to explain here exactly what the problem is and what he would like done about said problem.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The ceasefire is referenced in multiple sections including the lead -- this is a bad-faith and disruptive move and you were explicitly asked not to make any further changes to the tag until the discussion has resolved. Kindly restore the tag to its original position or I will report this as disruptive editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fix the body first, that decides the lead, not the other way around. And you didn't answer the request, what is the problem and what is it you want done. I don't like RFC any more than you do, their merit is they avoid pointless useless discussion to no purpose. So pretend there is one and phrase your request accordingly.Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The content under dispute is present in multiple locations in the article, not a single section, and it is inappropriate to apply the tag only to a single section. You knew that this would be a contentious move, and your seeming only purpose in doing so is to take the tag out of immediate sight, with the effect of notifying fewer users. You are not entitled to decide which discussions are "pointless" because you disagree. An equal number of users have expressed views on both sides of the matter, with an active discussion pending above. An RfC is not required—the normal means of discussion are perfectly appropriate—I have no idea what "request" you are referring to which needs to be met for you to stop disruptively editing this page. Policy clearly indicates the tag is not to be removed at this time. This is the last time I am going to ask. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If what you want is to attract users then start an RFC, works every time. Failing that, explain what the problems are and what you want done and we will go from there.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the talk page contains an RfC or a simple thread, either is sufficient for applying a tag at the top of the article for a content dispute that affects multiple sections including the lead. The rationale for raising the disagrement has been raised repeatedly above, and I do not have to repeat them to your satisifaction for you to follow basic guidelines regarding the application of tags. The justifications here you've offered are tendentious; You removed it merely because you disagree with the issue, which is disruptive, inappropriate, and in bad faith. Again, the proper course for you here would be to restore the tag to its original position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still not addressing the content issue, still arguing about the tag. You are now trying to say it affects multiple sections (this is new, you didn't mention this before, you just kept mentioning the NYT article and the ceasefire). Which sections? And why? We will then tag all of the ones affected. Tagging requires you to explain in talk and so far you haven't ((nor was there anything in the edit summary that applied the tag).Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

With reference to the unanswered question above (as well as the last comment in the preceding question) I hereby note that according to the guidelines

"It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."

constitutes a sufficient reason for removal of the tag. The editor who placed the tag is once again requested to provide said satisfactory explanation.Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Breakdown of the Ceasefire
Question : Did the IDF 4 November cross border raid lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire?Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Scholarly sources and a UN report support this:
 * The 2009 Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict noted that ",the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip," Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your RfC has problems: 1) sign it immediately after the question. 2) there are no section breaks for Polling and Discussion. -- Green  C  15:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I signed it. We can manage without the breaks, people often ignore them.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 'No For the purposes of this article, the sources are more nuanced than a simple black and white question. The UN report was later retraced by the lead author for example, it is too controversial for Wikipedia to assert in its own voice that this is an objective fact,  --  Green  C  15:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, nothing was retraced (sic). Hey look it's still there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict discusses Goldstone's retraction of his prior agreement with his previously agreed to statements concerning the intentional targeting of civilians by Israel, none of which had anything to do the ceasefire breakdown so that is simply misleading as well as irrelevant.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Goldstone was lead author and says "The purpose of these investigations is to ensure accountable for improper actions" of which breaking a cease fire is one, as originally detailed in the report. Goldstone's recusal from the report, in the Washington Post, gives the killing of civilians as an "example" (he says "example"), but is speaking of the report broadly. He confirms "If I had known then what I known now it would be a different document", and "there are 400 allegations of misconduct". He says the UN Human Rights Council's bias against Israel "cannot be doubted". He says the report should not "second-guess commanders making difficult battle-field decisions" with "the benefit of hindsight". Given all of this, there is more nuance than a "Israel perp / Hamas victim" which is conformed in the CSIS document linked above and other documents. -- Green  C  19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For your edification What Exactly Did Goldstone 'Retract' From His Report on Gaza?Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The RfC seeks truth of what happened. According to WP:V we verify if sources claim something is true, and report what those sources say. We do not decide on our own if something is true. We have mechanisms for dealing with multiple points of view about the truth, and they should be used as described in WP:NPOV. -- Green  C  19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given my opinion and several sources on which it is based (there are many more if needed), feel free to provide your own for the view that Israel 4 November action did not lead to the breakdown in the ceasefire. At the moment, you have given your opinion without any sources in support of it and confined yourself instead to an attempt to discredit an official UN report (at best you may try to discredit one of the authors but it won't change the report). At the end, we will assess the weight of sources and form a conclusion as to whether or not the article in its current form fairly represents those sources. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper RfC, who characterized a prior RfC as "undue," has opened an RfC asking about the WP:TRUTH of a matter. This is not an appropriate question and will have no bearing on article content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * False. Read the comment immediately preceding yours "At the end, we will assess the weight of sources and form a conclusion as to whether or not the article in its current form fairly represents those sources." and it is for the closer to decide if it has any bearing. And I join with Nableezy in a request to kindly stop pinging me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote:
 * "Nevertheless, each party felt as though the other was violating the terms of the unwritten cease-fire. Hamas demanded—unsuccessfully—that Israel lift its economic blockade of Gaza, while Israel demanded—also unsuccessfully—a full end to rocket fire and progress on the release of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity... Many believe that, all along, both sides considered the six-month cease-fire to be merely an opportunity to prepare more fully for eventual conflict." (Congressional Research Service, page 10)
 * To be perfectly frank, the RfCs overly simplistic view of this conflict with one side the perp and other side a victim, is nothing but naive and ill-informed. The CSR document clearly summarizes both sides were at fault in this conflict, trying to pin the blame on one is biased and doomed to failure once we get more neutral editors to look into this. -- Green  C  15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't see any mention of November 4 there, try again.Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No? OK, I'll help you..from the same report on page 6 "Violence had already resumed in the waning days of the cease-fire. After an Israeli raid on November 4 (ostensibly aimed at preventing Hamas’s use of tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers), rocket fire on Israel resumed with greater intensity from Gaza." No-one believed the abduction theory and it was quickly abandoned in favor of an arms smuggling theory instead, slightly more believable while still being conjecture.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditors attempted POV editing and subsequent tagging relate to the ceasefire and what happened during it and in particular his not feeling comfortable with Hamas being portrayed as observing the ceasefire, not the conflict in toto, and that is why we are here now. This has been gone over multiple times over the years and if there is anything new to add, I can tell you that time has not worked in Israel's favor.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, each party felt. We report that. It does not mean that we do not also report what reliable third party academic sources report, namely that the ceasefire fell apart after Israel violated it. The source you are quoting supports that Israel claimed that Hamas violated the ceasefire, not that Hamas actually did. The sources we have brought, which you for some reason ignore, say that Israel did in fact violate the ceasefire, not that Hamas simply felt that way. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring your sources, they exist and say what you say. In fact you are the one ignoring sources that show a different POV that both sides were at fault. Also you said "we report what sources say" is a completely different proposition from "we assert what the truth is". This RfC is proposing the later not the former. --  Green  C  15:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that sources are being ignored, where are they? Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Might as well have another Author Avi Shlaim writes in 2015 "...ceasefire had a dramatic effect in de-escalating the conflict.....It was Israel that violated the ceasefire. On 4 November, 2008 the (IDF) launched a raid into Gaza and killed 6 Hamas fighters. That was the end of the ceasefire. If all that Israel really wanted was to protect its citizens in the South then all it had to do was follow the good example set by Hamas in respecting the ceasefire." The RFC is not asserting anything, it is merely a vehicle for sources like this one.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "At Hamas’ end, the ceasefire worked relatively well until November 2008, with a steady decrease in rocket attacks, seemingly  mostly  launched  in  defiance  of  Hamas yet  Israel’s  closure  of  the  Strip persisted with no relaxation on the ban on trade" (p33) "On 4-5 November 2008 the situation precipitated when Israel carried out an incursion, allegedly in order to destroy a tunnel under construction, which killed six Hamas militants. Hamas resumed rocket attacks, including launching longer range missiles which reached Ashkelon and Netivot creating  additional  Israeli  public  pressure  on  the  government  to  take  action.  By  5  November Gaza’s borders were almost entirely sealed as Israel allowed a mere 6 truckloads per day to enter the Strip. In a situation in which over 80% of the 1.5 million people are dependent on food aid,93 the effect was devastating. In addition, the only power plant in the Gaza Strip was shut down  in  November  due  to  the  lack  of  fuel  entering  the  Gaza  Strip,  leaving  250,000  Gazans without electricity and with running water once every 5-7 days. The siege was also extended to building materials and cash, forcing banks to close by early December 2008 and to a suspension of all cash-for-work programmes. EU assistance through cash programmes and fuel payments thus also ground to a halt. The  EU  objected  to  Israel’s  closure  policy,  recognizing  it  as  an  illegal  act  of  collective punishment."(p34)


 * Yes, sources like that exist. In addition, there are sources that say "Many believe that, all along, both sides considered the six-month cease-fire to be merely an opportunity to prepare more fully for eventual conflict". According to this opinion both sides were preparing for conflict it was all a pretext for war, and in addition, according to the previous source I posted, Hamas also holds some blame for that. You don't have to agree with these opinions, only recognize the opinions exist. --  Green  C  16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All well and good, if that's what we were discussing. You can discuss the conflict in toto as long as you want, the RFC is about Hamas observance of the ceasefire up to 4 November 2008 and what happened then, the problem initially raised by Wikieditor and leading to both your RFC and this one.Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment In faculty scholarship, lead author and law professor George Bisharat {{George Bisharat, Timothy Crawley, Sar Elturk, Carey James, Rose Mishaan, Akila Radhakrishnan, and Anna Sanders, Israel's Invasion of Gaza in International Law, 38 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 41 (2009). url=http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1002 p.61 "Israel's November 4 Raids"}} writes "But these attacks followed Israeli operations which killed six Palestinians in Gaza on November 4. Before Israel's violation of the ceasefire in these raids, rocket attacks from Gaza had stopped almost entirely, totaling only one a month in July,September, and October and eight in the month of August. It was not until after the November 4 raids that rocket attacks from Gaza began increasing in number, and indeed the Washington Post reported on November 5 that Hamas' assertion of responsibility for the attacks in response to the Israeli operations was the "first such announcement by the group since the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire went into effect June 19." and goes on to cite the outcome of a study by MIT professor Nancy Kanwisher that only analyzed the 4 November case but "the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B’Tselem (including all the data from September 2000 to October 2008)" finding that "this pattern — in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause — becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days." concluding that "The latest ceasefire ended [on 4 November] when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel"Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerome Slater International Security 37:2 Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza

"Hamas continued to crack down on the Islamic Jihad attacks: "Hamas leaders have spoken out vehemently and unequivocally against the rocket fire,” wrote Alexander Yakobson, "[and] have even threatened those who violate the lull with arrest." In December 2008, a New York Times reporter concluded that Hamas had "imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets," in a "largely successful" effort to halt all attacks. Nonetheless, on November 4, Israel broke the ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza, attacking a tunnel and killing 6 members of Hamas. Hamas retaliated on November 14, firing rockets into southern Israel and announcing that it would not abide by the latest ceasefire agreement when it expired in December but would be prepared to negotiate a new agreement if Israel agreed to stop its attacks and ease its siege.Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd degree of bludgeoning and disruptive behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the final analysis, this is simply a question of relative weight in sources. Although I am presently refraining from adding sourced material to the section subject of this RFC I will of course be free to add it once it ends (I also have no objection to its being attributed, in fact that would be better). In the meantime you might give consideration to the request made of you several times now that you explain precisely what the nature of your objections are and what you expect to be done about them. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem paragraph #1
The paragraph that starts "A number of unilateral commentaries or demands.." is a mess. What is this paragraph about? It starts out concerning unilateral statements over the truce terms at the start of it, then jumps in time into a first person account by a non-notable person at the end of it - why is this lengthy quote in the article, who is the person, why at this spot? Then it becomes someone's opinion about who was responsible for breaking the ceasefire (itself a significant topic of discussion elsewhere but tacked onto the end of the paragraph here for unknown reasons). Then the sub-section following, called "Implementation", again repeats the same sort of information about breaking the cease fire. The section following that, again, repeating the same information. The paragraph in question should focus at the time the cease fire started. We write chronologically. It was originally done chronologically. The article has deteriorated as editors taking a battleground approach insert their POVS in places where it might say things they don't like, to try and balance or push a certain narrative. This is the first paragraph I analyzed for NPOV and other problems. -- Green  C  21:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take a crack at this one. You raise a valid issue, and even skimming the article I noticed how extensive the problems were. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown
RfC Question: ''Should this edit stay? '' -- Green  C  16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit dispute: The article asserts factually, in the voice of Wikipedia, that Israel is to blame for breaking the cease fire.

Historical Background: In June 2008 Hamas and Israel agreed to a ceasefire. It largely held for a few months. Hamas dug a tunnel, possibly for defensive purposes or possibly offensive. Israel informed Hamas it would be attacking the tunnel to shut it down. 6 Hamas members were killed during the attack on the tunnel. Hamas retaliated with rockets into Israel. Thus leading to the Gaza War. (this is a brief summary of relevant points a fuller account is in the article)

Previous discussions: lengthy discussions above. -- Green  C  16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support edit (as the editor). Per WP:V "We must not present opinion as fact".. There are multiple POVs (opinions) who is to blame. The IDF declared at the time of the attack they were not breaking the cease fire ie. they intended a 'surgical strike', they considered the tunnel a threat. Ignoring the POV of an accused party would be a NPOV violation. Other sources blame both sides, Encyclopedia Britannica: "the truce was threatened shortly thereafter as each accused the other of violations". Other sources describe what happened without assigning blame; if blame was straight forward why are these sources not saying so? See Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict first 10 lines on page 256. Finally many sources do blame Israel, see the article and above. There are at least three different ways sources present what happened. There is WP:WEIGHT in the sources to blame Israel, and the article accurately reflects that weight, but asserting factually in the voice of Wikipedia "Israel is to blame" takes opinion to a level of absolute certainty. The sources do not support this and never could for such a complex and opinionated situation as the breaking of a cease fire that has incomplete information and conflicting accounts.  --  Green  C  09:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seem neutral statement of fact to me --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Whether the raid was a justified preemptive measure defensive against military action by by H or an unprovoked violation of the ceasefire is a matter of interpretation, not fact. WP:PARTISAN scholars suggesting the latter should have their views attributed, specifically or generally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose to me (what do the bulk of RS say) a ceasefire is violated when someone fires, to me it does not matter if you tell anyone (did HAMAS object?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Building tunnel is a violation too. We should state facts and let that reader decide.What violation and what is not. --Shrike (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any RS say the tunnel was a violation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there seems to be a misunderstanding of what NPOV requires. It requires POVs that are published by reliable sources to be presented in proportion to their prevalence among such sources. The IDF is not a reliable source. The only thing that reliable sources say about the IDFs view is that it is the IDFs view, but reliable sources assert, as a fact, that the IDFs view is not correct. The claim that but asserting factually in the voice of Wikipedia "Israel is to blame" takes opinion to a level of absolute certainty. The sources do not support this is quite obviously factually wrong. The sources do support this. Here are two:  We should, as with all articles, follow the balance of sources, not report "some say the Earth is flat" in the name of seeking some false balance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should as well include the UN report (this is the one to read if one wants to know what happened as opposed to what one thinks happened):
 * Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict Pages 62 onwards (Events occurring between the "ceasefire" of 18 June 2008 .... and the start of Israel's military operations in Gaza on 27 December 2008)
 * "254.After two months in which few incidents were reported, the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip, which Israel stated was to close a cross-border tunnel that in Israel’s view was intended to be used by Palestinian fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers."
 * This is clear support for what the scholarly sources are saying and taken together, far outweigh 12 year old newspaper articles written without possession of all the relevant information.Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

'Please keep lengthy arguments and quotes in the Discussion section and limit your votes in the Poll'' section to one or two concise sentences, referencing an applicable policy. Thanks.''' Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't create false balance. We rely on what reliable sources say:
 * The evidence suggests Israel broke the ceasefire with a raid into the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas men on 4 November
 * it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas by blowing up one of the tunnels
 * In the first place, it was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so on 4 November 2008, by launching a raid into Gaza that killed six Hamas fighters on the flimsy excuse that they were digging a turmel.
 * Israel broke the ceasefire with a November 4, 2008, military raid into the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas members, to which Hamas responded with rocket fire into southern Israel
 * We don't rely on what Israel or Hamas say or even your opinion. We rely on what reliable scholar sources say.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Neutral, factual, and policy compliant. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - No, we shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice, though it would be fine to state it as the opinion of a certain source or set of sources. The sources overall are obviously divided on the matter, as GreenC noted, so we should adopt a neutral perspective and not take sides. Ahiroy (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, makes sense to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:WikiVoice. It's a fact that Israel raided the tunnel. Whether this constituted "breaking the cease fire", and also whether the tunnel itself constituted "breaking the cease fire", are matters of opinion. I would change "raid of" to "raid on" however. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Had I been neutrally asked to agree with the edit that is actually the subject of the RFC, I would likely have not objected. However, given the attempt to instead dress this up as being about the ceasefire in general rather than a specific edit, I am bound to oppose. One cannot just RFC away the overwhelming weight of reliable sources in favor of a few relatively weak sources.Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Green  Idealigic (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussions
Comment RFC is malformed/undue since no-one has until now attempted to remove the edit that has been made although it is subject of a discussion. Suggest editor close this RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation in policy to remove edit to start a RFC --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing about this RfC is "malformed," it addresses a content issue in the article and offers a proposal. Has repeatedly removed the dispute tag, claiming doing so was appropriate because there was "no RfC" on this page and on their talk page. Now SS views the RfC as inappropriate. Ridiculous, and disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment RFC is malformed/undue as its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An RfC can't be "undue," any editor is entitled to make a content proposal via this method. Bickering over form is uncalled for; the RfC provides a brief and neutral summary. If you have specific objections to the proposal, you are free to articulate those here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'Historical Bakckground' is a good faith attempt to provide a brief summary of events and place them into context so new editors can quickly come up to speed and decide if they want to participate before diving into the lengthy and complex article and comment sections above. The RfC encourages readers to do that. -- Green  C  14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its still not neutral, read wp:rfc, and I said nothing about Undue, I said its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I need to quote your comment above? If you have a suggestion for GreenC as to how the wording might be revised, that would be more helpful than calling it generally malformed/undue. IMO, GreenC did a perfectly fine job with this summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, take out any and all commentary and just ask the question (as wp:rfc instructs).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A brief, neutral summary is appropriate. See WP:RFC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes "neutral" "this is the reality" is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read the summary twice and have no idea what you're referring to. Sitting and complaining about the summary in general and vague terms is not helpful. If you believe an aspect of the four-line summary is incorrect, you are free to offer a suggestion and I'm sure GreenC will take it into account. Otherwise, try to focus on content instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Perfection is the enemy of the good, and the RfC does a perfectly adequate job of giving relevant background and making clear what's being proposed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. This RFC is just smoke and mirrors for an argument that Israel is not to blame (RFC title "Who is to blame?") when Israel, by a vast majority of RS and in particular, scholarly RS, IS to blame (for the breakdown in the ceasefire).Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment There is a difference between "breaking the ceasefire" which both sides did from day one and an event leading to the "breakdown of the ceasefire" which is what occurred on 4 November. The oft mentioned solitary NYT article refers to a break of the ceasefire after November 4 but there were many of these (see the UN report) and these breaches only became serious after November 4, the de facto end of the ceasefire even if it nominally still had time to run. This RFC is trying to paint a different picture by its very wording.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A cease fire is an agreement, not a literal lack of fire. An agreement is broken according to the opinions of participants, observers, historians, journalists and legal experts ie. it is a subjective opinion. Commonly, cease fires are a matter of dispute.  --  Green  C  14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about as straightforward a matter as there can be. Reliable sources have expressed multiple views on the matter. Attribution is required per WP:V. Policy requires changes to the text in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment, I suggest to move your comment to here from RFC --Shrike (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment An additional issue is the linking of Cast Lead to the end of the ceasefire. Cast Lead need not have been launched merely because of the breakdown in the ceasefire, in fact it likely wasn't launched because of that or at least not solely because of that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given your opinion, Should this edit stay? -- Green  C  14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, your RFC wording wrongly links the 2 things together, that's now 3 reasons why you should start over with this RFC. I am not going to vote this RFC because it's a wrong RFC for the reasons I have given.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? The RfC is narrowly focused on the wording surrounding the ceasefire arrangement. It does not address subsequent military operations following the end of the ceasefire. Stop jumbling the issues. The proposal here is clearly stated; if you have views on it, feel free to express them and cast a vote. Your endless quibbling over non-existent form issues and trying to conflate issues not raised in the RfC is tiresome. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Alternatively, why are we having an RFC that doesn't address your tag?Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having an RfC precede the edit is actually the diplomatic way to do things. We also don't hold RfCs on whether to apply tags; we hold RfCs on substantive content disputes, apply the tag to indicate an ongoing discussion, and remove the tag once it's resolved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This RFC isn't preceding the edit, the edit is already in the article and the proposer is asking whether it should stay. I didn't suggest we should have an RFC on whether to apply tags, I asked whether this RFC addresses the issues you raised by your tag and if it does not then why are we having this RFC?Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, I suggest you remove a significant portion of your vote, namely the two block quotes, to the discussion section and keep your vote summary to one-to-two sentences, so that both threads are easier to follow and your points can conveniently be responded to.


 * Let's not cherrypick sources to affirm a single interpretation. The NYT, CRS, Human Rights Watch, and others have not unequivocally stated that Israel violated the ceasefire. Here is yet another NYT source indicating that the US held Hamas responsible for the ceasefire. The sources above report that the raid targeted fighters building a tunnel, after which rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza resumed. There are clearly multiple views on this subject. This is not a "world is flat" proposal, which suggests acknowledgement only of a certain set of viewpoints as valid (violating WP:NPOV. If a source is appropriate and reliable enough for inclusion, the viewpoints expressed within those sources must be noted per WP:DUE. The IDF is not the source for these statements, though IDF statements may be included with attribution (and ideally a citation to a secondary source).
 * This is not about whether the IDF is "reliable" or "not reliable." The sources provided above offering secondary analysis are reliable. If anything, the Hamas claims (Hamas = a recognized terrorist organization) that the tunnels were not being used for offensive purposes are WP:EXTRAORDINARY and require special scrutiny, i.e. multiple high-quality sources affirming as much. However, since we have interpretations on both sides, the better response is to document all prominently noted viewpoints and supply attribution, not state one particular set of interpretations as fact. WP:V. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

1) The New York Times, Amnesty International, the CRS, and others are reliable sources. Suggesting that use of these sources and their interpretations either creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE or introduces a "world is flat" type view is mistaken. See WP:DUE, WP:RSP. 2) The proposal is to supply attribution for all views published in reliable sources. One view does not "trump" another if both are published in reliable sources. 3) Editors are reminded not to make accusations against others regarding what their personal views may or may not be. Arguments made in good faith with reference to reliable sources deserved to be responded to in-kind. This has nothing to do with personal opinions; this is about presenting all reliable sources, with a diversity of mediums, in the article and using the most neutral wording possible. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: Let me try to summarize a few major misconceptions in a few of the oppose votes.
 * No. And none of those reliable sources say Israel did not break the ceasefire. None of them say that Hamas broke the ceasefire. One of them says Israel says their raid was not a violation. It does not say that it in fact was not. And please do not repeat the WP:BLUDGEONing tactic as seen elsewhere. Thanks in advance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Each of these sources notably and clearly avoids accusing Israel of breaking the ceasefire, instead characterizing both sides' actions as responsible for the breakdown. Big difference. And here is yet another reliable source (book published in Georgetown UP) further intentionally avoiding such a characterization:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Israel and Hamas accused each other of violating the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire. As a matter of fact, rockets from Gaza never completely stopped during the truce, and Israel never allowed a major flow of goods and aid into Gaza. According to Hamas, it was Israel's raid into the Gaza Strip and the killing of six Hamas fighters on November 4, 2008, that broke the cease-fire. Israel claimed that its action was a legitimate step to destroy an immediate threat - namely, a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers.
 * Again, this is a reliable source published in Georgetown University Press, not the Flat Earth Society. To assert that we should ignore these reliably sourced interpretations in favor of scholars that articulate a different position is to violate WP:NPOV. And don't make accusations of bludgeoning, which is incredibly ironic given the amount of combative and lengthy posts you've made here.
 * Better yet, just format your vote properly like everyone else and place the paragraph-long block quotes in the discussion section, and keep your vote short and concise. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that source does not say that Israel or Hamas broke the ceasefire. It likewise does not say that they did not break the ceasefire. That is, it does not dispute what the other sources say as a fact. Kindly stop badgering me. And yes, bludgeoning. I count 13 or 14 of your signatures in the rfc and discussion section. This will be my third, two at your pings. Please stop. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Requiring the source "dispute" a POV is a strawman fallacy not relevant to WP:V or the RfC. -- Green  C  20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A strawman fallacy? What does WP:V have to do with any of this? I have brought several reliable sources that flat out say the attack in November violated the ceasefire. Your response to that is to bring sources that dont say that it did not violate the ceasefire but argue that this means we cannot say that it did? And you are going to talk about WP:V? It is a verifiable fact that the Israeli raid violated the ceasefire. I have brought several reliable sources that verify that fact. Are there are any sources that actually dispute that fact? Any at all? If you want to talk about verifiability be my guest lol, but that likewise does not make your argument stronger. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is very straightforward. An interpretation shared by several scholars does not make that interpretation fact. The reliable sources above do not confirm the same view. When some sources reach a conclusion and others are more circumspect, then the former is not a universal view, and both must be represented in the article. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Any mention of the Israeli raid of the tunnels being characterized as a formal violation of the ceasefire requires attribution. Adding another block quote does nothing to dispute this basic point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In cite #91 (Coresdman) "The 'Gaza War': A Strategic Analysis" published by Center for Strategic and International Studies, pg 9. it says "The immediate trigger of the war was an Israeli raid". Then on page 10: "Hamas must bear responsibility for the key strategic and grand strategic mistakes that initiated the conflict." -- it is nuanced view that blames both sides for initiating the conflict. It blames Israel tactically and Hamas strategically. Once you have that context, the raid of November 8 becomes less significant, an inevitable "trigger" for the gun Hamas loaded - this POV is not represented in the article. Finally, this source does not claim Israel violated the cease fire. It confirms Hamas claimed they did ("The [Hamas] statement claimed Israel had not honored the terms of the ceasefire"), but does not go so far as blaming Israel. They use the same NPOV language we do at Wikipedia, attributing an opinion without stating it as factually true. -- Green  C  02:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You lest out the first part of the sentence, "at least in this sense..." which refers to the respect line about how it underestimated isrtale willingness to respond. So no I do not think it apportions blame equally.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This RFC is solely about the question RfC Question: Should this edit stay?  (an edit that no-one has reverted or even attempted to change) and not about anything else whatsoever. Changing the RFC title after there have been responses based on the previous title does not alter this fact in any way.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In view of the obvious deficiencies in this RFC, I have established a new one that I believe addresses the principal issue directly and neutrally as well as attempting at the same time to deal with the article wide tag that has been applied (while noting that a sufficient explanation as to what the problem is or what is expected to be done about it has still not been supplied as required). There is no difficulty in both of these RFC's running simultaneously as they cover two entirely separate issues.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of which way the RFC winds up going (I have not reviewed enough RS to take a strong stance either way), per its WP:RSP entry Mondoweiss (Currently used as the source for the sentence where the first change in the edit takes place) should not be used unattributed for statements of fact, especially contentious ones. I don't see an RSP entry about it, but the same probably goes for CAMERA (the source used in the sentence where the second change from the edit takes place, although the pre-change wording does not seem to appear in the source). Any statements that are sourced to these publications should be attributed, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed that early on it was a flag the article has deeper problems. There are probably better sources that could be used in this case, however the RfC turns out. -- Green  C  13:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

open rfcs?
Uh there is no open rfc on this page. Anybody see any rfc tags? Anybody notice that the rfc that had been held 2 whole ass months ago was about an edit that remains in the article? Anybody? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then an RFC labeled "RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown" above which is still open, You can ask an administrator to close it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   16:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "still open", there is no rfc tag, rfcs run for a month and that was almost 2 months ago now, and an admin does not need to close an rfc, and besides that, you are placing a NPOV dispute tag over an edit you agree with that is still in the article? You serious lol? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: No consensus. No consensus on whether the goal of WP:CONSISTENT should be applied here. One of the oppose !vote is not about WP:CONSISTENT, which is the point of this request. Closing as it has already been relisted once. (non-admin closure) ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gaza War (2008–2009) → 2008–2009 Gaza War – Consistency with 2014 Gaza War Ridax2020 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 21:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Needs discussion: I can't believe that this article's title hasn't been arrived at by discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnadigoodluck (talk • contribs)
 * oppose Consistency with other articles is not a strong reason to change. Wikipedia is inconsistent on where dates are placed. For example see Category:Gaza_War_(2008–2009) and all of the other Gaza War-related articles that would have to be renamed. A single year in front is OK but two years is too much, the emphasis is on Gaza War and the dates are a disambiguation. --  Green  C  21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the above comment that a double date out front isn't a good format for an article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Calling it a war is misleading and disingenious. One side has an army, navy, air force, and some of the best tech in the world - the other has some lame fireworks. Operation Cast Lead is a much better title since the name is recognizable and reflects the intentions of the party that dubbed it so.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Gaza War" portion is not in question for this RfM, and was decided in a previous RfM in the archives. If you want to change it that would need to be reviewed to see why people thought Gaza War was OK, make a new RfM that addresses those arguments and adds new arguments for a change. --  Green  C  17:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support moving one of the articles to be consistent with its counterpart. I don't care which is moved. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021
Operation Cast Lead was not a massacare, this is disinformation that is distributed to the whole world, you should delete that. 46.116.189.11 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Run n Fly (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gaza genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gaza genocide. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre (2008)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gaza Massacre (2008). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)