Talk:Human shield/Archive 1

Palestinians
Some referenced information was very quickly reverted and/or changed no irrelevant/unhelpful non-referenced material. Maybe we can save ourselves some trouble and sort out the main points here. --Filter23 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I take it there is a presumption of innocence in the abscence of evidence?
 * 2) There is no evidence of Palestinians using Palestinians as human shields, only claims made from ITIC and the IDF both of whom are not neutral on this subject
 * 3) Amnesty International and the UN both say Palestinians don't use human shields, I've referenced an in-depth exhaustive report saying this (which was removed). Can we agree these groups are independent and neutral?

Propaganda Device
There should be a section added detailing the use of the term "human shield" as a form of propaganda to de-humanize enemy combatants. An insurgency using human shields has been a repeated lie told by governments to justify the use of force against them. They did it in WW1, they did it in Iraq, they did it with Bin Laden (it has now been confirmed he did not use his wife/ves as human shields when he was raided by the SEALS), and they've been doing it with Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary vs. Involuntary
It seems to me this article is describing two rather different situations, and getting itself a bit confused in the process. I would suggest separate headings, one for the non-voluntary human shields and one for voluntary ones. I might have a go at this but not right now. --Joeboy 12:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The human shields in the first gulf war were involuntary. I think I remember some of the people who were involuntary human shields in the first gulf war were objecting to the use of the term for the voluntary human shields in the second gulf war due to the confusion you mention. --Gbleem 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. the two are different. Roger Warren (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren

I think this point needs to be revisited. It's not just a matter of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary." When Israeli soldiers force Palestinians at gunpoint to enter houses first so that the Israeli soldiers don't get shot at, that fits the literal definition of "human shield" used in international law. When Hamas militants hide out in a hospital or school, they are not literally fitting that definition, but certainly they can be criticized (and are) for putting civilians at risk. But the only people who consider them "human shields" at that point is the IDF. The ICRC reserves the term for use "where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack.". The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional colocation of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives." (p. 340 of Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume 1 Rules, pub by ICRC, 2005). The stuff happening in Gaza, while certainly troubling, doesn't fit this definition by a long shot. Civilians aren't being moved to targets, they aren't being forced, and the intent is in fact to draw israeli fire to civilian targets and provoke media condemnations of Israeli actions rather than to prevent targeting of military objectives. If Hamas managed to bomb the Kirya or the Rabin IDF base there, hundreds of civilians in Tel Aviv would probably be killed. Certainly these are military targets -- would people criticize Israel for making the civilians who live and work in Tel Aviv into human shields? Doubtful. I think we need to be clear at least that there is an "official" definition of "human shield" as used in international law, and there is a rhetorical notion that is used during wartime that is not consistent with that legal definition. Certainly the whole section on Gaza and Hamas should be greatly shortened here and should include this caveat. csloat (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. Of course when the Israelis and their supporters speak of "rules of war", they mean two sets: one for themselves and another for their "terrorist" enemies. So they aren't bothered by their own hypocrisy.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
Why is this article listed as NPOV? --Eyrian 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason. I removed it.  Lengis 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"This technique is highly illegal"
Illegal where? T. S. Rice 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention- it is explicitly defined as a war crime.

This is a little more serious-

Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet.

This is factually wrong. Bullets made of (relatively) soft metals such as lead can deform when they hit something, but this has to do with the density of what they hit and the round's velocity when it hits, not the temperature. I'm going to remove the 'when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being)' portion of the sentence.

Oy. Upon re-reading the paragraph, I decided it needs a complete re-write. Here's the original:

''Some lesser used instances of human shields, include literally using a human as a physical barrier against bullets, or taking advantage of the opposing gun's lack of over penetration as a means of creating a shield. Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet. The same is true for hollow point bullets which mushroom when entering living tissue. However both of these types prevent the bullet from piercing right through the victim, thus leaving anything directly behind them safe from oncoming fire. This idea has been demonstrated in several action movies including a controversial scene in Total Recall.''

Anyone who decides my new version is inferior is welcome to revert it.


 * Then I'll amend the final intro statement so it clearly states where the technique is illegal. T. S. Rice 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some bullets expand when the temperature around them rises (i.e. when entering a living being); this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage inflicted per bullet.  Wouldn't the bullet be hotter when it exits the barrel then when it enters the body. And at 98.6 degrees the body is not signifgantly warmer then (and is sometimes cooler then) the natural enviroment. Hence the bullet would contract in some situations. The entire statment is completely flawed. --mitrebox 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Source needed
This claim
 * Pictures from the Gaza Strip have documented incident of Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees using children as human shield, to prevent the IDF from firing over gunmen and Qassam rockets.[1]

needs a new reference as the link in question is down/gone. Also the original source was from an Israeli newspaper. Ideally a more neutral source should be used. Also, since I haven't seen the pictures I can't say for sure but we need to be careful here. Especially if it's only one image, we need to be sure the picture conclusively proves such a claim. If the child were simply nearby, it is unlikely we can say for sure IMHO. If the person was actually holding the child then perhaps but again, if it's only one image, it could very well be that the person is trying to move the child out of the way. In the absence of clarity, we should only say it's alleged Nil Einne 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon = Gaza?
Why is lebanon grouped with Gaza and the West bank ? Lebanon is independent soverign democracy, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are independent of Lebanon and are a democracy without a state. These are seperate areas.. why are tey linked together? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

International Law with respect to Human shields
Just wanted to note that my understanding is that a 'protected person' under Geneva Convention IV does not include all civilians, but does include all people who are of a different nationality to the State which has them in its control (i.e. people in an occupied territory, captured enemy soldiers, civilians in enemy territory, etc). See article 4 "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." For these people, article 8 says that they cannot renounce their rights under the convention (relevant with respect to 'voluntary' human shields). Additional Protocol I is also relevant for those states which have ratified it (not the US), since it does make it illegal to use civilians to render an area immune from military operations (article 51(7)). This article says nothing which would indicate that consent would make the use of civilians lawful, but nor does it explicitely say otherwise.

The explanation in the ICRC commentary (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600033?OpenDocument) needs to be incorporated into the text. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the following text here from the article page because since I raised the issue last August nothing has been done to fix the obvious generalisations in it which cause it to be either wrong or misleading or both:
 * International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28).

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by Avraham
Avraham, a pro-Israel editor is removing sourced content about Israel's use of Human shiled tactic, that is published on many sites, and has good sources. I ask professional users to counter his vandalism. Thanks --217.219.236.17 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising articles, and stop posting rude messages to me. I've read your edits, and the opinion of other users about you. It seems you're a notorious editor here. Try to remain civil and polite, and do not try to make personal attacks. This could make a you better editor. --217.219.236.17 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham. Thank you. -- Avi 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Human shields in Israel/Palestine
Can someone put text into the inline links in the section "Human shields in Israel/Palestine". And also please consider if such a list should carry the template examplefarm --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article fails to go further into Israel's use of "human shields." What it is referring to is the IDF policy of asking neighbors of terrorist holed up, surronnded by the Israeli Army, to talk to their neighbor and try to get them to come out. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this Illegal because one of these people were killed when a terrorist shot one of them.96.229.94.216 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

quote should be removed
The placement of the Fathi Ahmad Hammad "quote" at the beginning of the article is an obvious attempt to use the article to make a political point. It should not be placed in the introduction. Futher, the source for this "quote" is the questionable translation of an overly political group (MEMRI) whose staff consists of former Israeli intelligence military officers. 70.234.253.15 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish section
I recently added this section, but it was quickly removed:

===Ireland=== ''During the Irish War for Independence, attacks on British motorised patrols were common in Dublin. To prevent this, Irish Republican Army prisoners were brought along in the trucks and their presence advertised by signs, some of which also taunted, "Bomb Us Now". This practice was discontinued following reports of it in the international media.''

The editor who removed it seems to be working under the assumption that not alone do human shields have to be human shields to make it into this article, they have to be described as such at the time, a premise I find dubious. Editing restrictions placed on me have been recently interpreted more liberally so as to embrace this period in Irish history, so it's doubtful I'll be reinserting this material myself. All of this information is already available at Irish War for Independence, where it has existed without controversy for years.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is denouncing the Human Shields, and is that relevant?
In response to evidence that Hamas has used civilian areas for cover, somebody wrote:


 * This however has been denounced by Palestinians.

The sentence and reference are unrelated to each other and to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody changed it back. Here's a compromise:


 * This practice has been denounced by the world.

It's more accurate to say that everybody denounces human shields than to say that the Palestinians do. E.g. Israelis denounce it:



but you have to remember that Palestinians voted for Hamas in part knowing how they would carry out war.

Mainstream sources do not support the claim that Israel's enemies systematically use human shields, or that most civilian casualties among the Palestinians, Lebanese, and others can be explained by "collateral damage" resulting from attacks on military targets by Israel. But in any case all of Israel's leaders have been elected by the people, which would presumably mean that there are no "civilians" among the Israelis either. It's odd when Israel's supporters speak of "rules of war" and argue that Israel abides by them better that its "terrorist" enemies, and then proceed to apply one set of rules to the Israelis and another to those enemies.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mongols, Soviets, Germans in Warsaw Uprising, Germans in wars against Poland in the Middle Ages
Just from the top of my head. Mongols during their campaigns in Central Asia. Germans in Warsaw in 1944. Soviets in eastern Poland in 1939. Germans in Glogow 1109.

"After the five days were up, Henry V. reversed his decision and laid siege to Głogów. Breaking his promise, he chained the child hostages to his siege engines, hoping that the people of Głogów would not shoot their own offspring, which would allow him to conquer the Polish settlement.

However, Henry's cruelty towards children only strengthened the resolve of Głogów's defenders. Several attacks by the German army were repulsed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_G%C5%82og%C3%B3w

Soviets - in Polish: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Jasi%C5%84ski --Revery (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why all this article is about Israel?
It was a common German tactic in the USSR during WWII to use peasants as human shields during attacks.--Dojarca (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this article could definitely use more examples, please bring some sources and add it. thanks.  untwirl (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammed Badwan
I fail to understand how inserting information identifying the source of a picture and the story depicted is POV pushing. Malik, I am expecting an explanation. You reverted the edit I made that was based on sourced content. It identified the person who took the picture and described the alleged events, and also the organization of which he is the director. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your identification went a little farther than that, it also called him director of the "left-wing Palestinian activist group" when Rabbis for Human Rights is not a "Palestinian activist group" (though I suppose you could call it "left-wing" in the Israeli political spectrum) when you could have just added the wikilink to the organization. You also changed the description of the picture (how would tying him to the car make the protesters stop throwing rocks at the soldiers and not the vehicles?).  nableezy  - 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so basically we should reinsert the sentence but take out the word "Palestinian". I didn't follow the logic in your second issue; the soldiers sit in the vehicle. Are you saying that stone throwers seek to damage vehicles, and not to hit the soldiers themselves? It doesn't even matter. My description came directly from the article in the picture. The change of wording to "vehicles" is OR. Breein1007 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it were true that Badwan is the director of this group, and I highly doubt it, there is no need to include "activist group" at all. Would you prefer if I instead changed it to "highly respected human rights organization"?  nableezy  - 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the article in question, it is the boy and his father, not "the left-wing Palestinian activist group Rabbis for Human Rights", who say he was used as a human shield. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of the boy claiming that he was used as a human shield. In any case, if that is what you prefer, then we can identify the boy's father as the source of the claim. Your blank reverts were highly inappropriate and you showed a serious lack of WP:AGF. Your blank reverts also undid completely valid edits of mine. Thankfully Nableezy corrected part of your mistake and reinserted my edit, removing some of the OR in the image summary. Breein1007 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont often feel that Malik makes mistakes (though I mistakenly called him Malcolm once). And I too questioned if Muhammed Badwan would be the director of Rabbis for Human Rights. As far as I know the name "Muhammed" is not often used by Rabbis.  nableezy  - 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, for some reason you decided to remove the sentence that I had removed, and Malik had reverted back into the summary. In terms of your second point here, I'm not sure if you were joking or not... the picture was taken by a rabbi from that organization. It is discussed in the article. Breein1007 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed one sentence that I felt was not necessary, the rest of your changes I think were inappropriate. And I am not joking, I simply misread. I thought your edit said that Badwan was the director of the organization, apologies. (but looking again at your edit, it is not clear if "Mohammed Badwan" is modifying "director of Rabbis for Human Rights" or if it is modifying "13 year old boy". That should be made clearer if you plan on reinserting it)  nableezy  - 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

White Terror in Finland, 1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror "In Helsinki, the White Guards made workers' wives and children walk in front of their troops as they recaptured the city street by street."--Revery (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Violation in Israel section
This section is clearly not neutral, given the excessive focus on the claims of Israel's use of human shields when there is overwhelming evidence of Palestinian use of human shields. The weight of the claims against Israel are completely unbalanced and must be immediately addresses. Clearly not neutral from any perspective. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that there was a separate section for "Gaza and the West Bank" (which should be renamed Palestinian territories or something and tied with the Israel section) but there is still undue weight with regards to claims of Israel's use of human shields. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the divergent section titles "Israel" and "Gaza and the West Bank" makes no sense since both sections focus on events in the Palestinian territories. If one section is to be labeled Israel, than what would the other section be, Palestinians? No, that doesn't make any sense so these sections should probably be merged in a way that makes sense. Right now it's non-sensical. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have added an undue weight tag. Israel's use of human shields has been marginal and does not play an important role in the conflict (unlike Hamas's infamous use of human shields), yet it has the largest section of all. Your last comment is also correct, that since the Israel and WB/Gaza sections deal with the same conflict, they should be merged. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem? You have reverted this piece a few times and the reasons that you gave are pretty feeble to say the least. One time you claimed the information was false as of 2011, well this is an encyclopedia and it covers history of events, I do not see you reverting the section on the Mongols from the 13th century because it is false as of 2011. The piece that I added is true, factual, well sourced and states what happened.You also claimed that it says something different than the sources and this is incorrect as the sources make it clear that Israel had a policy of using Palestinians as human shields and it also states that they wanted to appeal against the Israeli supreme courts decision making it illegal to use them.So yes they did have a policy.Your other claim was POV language well that has been sorted out as another editor added the bit about the Israeli supreme court. So now the piece is as it should be.It states the facts, with very good sources from the BBC and Israeli news media and it is balanced. So I do not see what you are complaining about.As for the undue weight thing I do not see it. Israel is supposed to be an upstanding western type military that sticks to the rules of war, therefore their use of human shields is a big deal I believe.All the other people using human shields in that article could be described as dictators, militants etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about undue weight, not the particular mini-paragraph that the edit war was about; I self-reverted there are realizing that the version I reverted last had been modified and was factual. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What about undue weight? Explain yourself.All I can see you have said about it is that it has been marginal, which of course is not true as there have been many cases of them using them and even after the High court banned it.They had a policy of using them, that much has been made clear with the links provided.So again what is the problem?Owain the 1st (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Until the problems above ar addressed (inbalance and leak of proportions) the NPOV tag should be put on this entry. For example: it clearly ignores testimonies of armed Hamas gunmen crossing street while carrying children in order to prevent IDF soldiers to shoot them (the gunmen) - a clear use of human shield that Amnesty ignores. Also cases of rigged schools, mosques and civilian facilities are ignored.  M ath K night  11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * it clearly ignores testimonies of armed Hamas gunmen crossing street while carrying children in order to prevent IDF soldiers to shoot them .... so please provide the source for this and we can add it to the section, if appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a personel testimony from a friend of mine who served there during the operation. For other human shield by Palestinian terrorists case see here (in Hebrew) and here (in English).  M ath K night  13:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also page 5 of this report on Palestinian children acting as human shield for Hamas.  M ath K night  13:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously IDF-sponsored propaganda outlets don't qualify as reliable sources for this article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MathKnight, this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Please take care not to violate them. If you do, you can be sure you will end up at arbitration enforcement.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IDF-sponsored propaganda outlets??? Excuse me, but this is overstepping all possible boundaries. A legitimate army force produces legitimate reliable sources, would you like to contest that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It can go to WP:RSN if Dlabtot or others object strongly. Of course it's propaganda though, textbook example. It doesn't necessarily mean it contains false information or that it can't be used as a source with attribution. It would be better to use independant secondary sources that report their findings if possible so that we know that someone other than Wikipedia editors care. A better example of someone overstepping boundaries in the topic area is MathKnight using a blog and restoring it after it was removed... Thankfully it's gone now.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV on peacetime Iraq section?!
"Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the liberation of their country." "Liberation"?! Really? Reads like it was sourced from the autobiography of someone fed on US propaganda justifying his shooting of Iraqis. 'Invasion' would be more NPOV, but I'm going to leave it up to others to consider this because I don't have a lot of wiki editing experience.

Too much focus on Fathi Hammad
We're giving this weird terrorist too much quote space, and leaving too many of his long rants without breaks, resulting in a whole section of him expressing his views word-by-word. There is no need letting such an insane madman gain that much of the spotlight. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the bias in "Gaza and the West Bank" section here
Sean and I could not agree on this section, so this seems to be the right place to discuss.


 * The section had a clear bias towards Hamas, and seemed to imply using human shields is a good idea by not stating anything bad about it, and the section, as it stands, praises how human shields have worked.
 * I strongly believe that this is not right, and human shields, even when successful, is non-beneficial, eventually leading to bloodbath in the end
 * So I wanted to add at least something so that, just in case the people who committed its usage reads this article, they'll see it isn't good.
 * But somebody reverted it, despite how it is common sense. I told him if he really disagreed, I'll just leave it to avoid unresolvable argument, but he replied he didn't disagree, and that it was only unverifiable. Could something as simple as "using human shields to defend Hamas officials is unpopular" REALLY require verification? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of issues
 * See WP:SOAP, it's important. We aren't here to convince people as to the merits of using/not using human shields. We are just supposed to describe things objectively from a neutral point of view using reliable sources.
 * "I strongly believe that this is not right" and "just in case the people who committed its usage reads this article, they'll see it isn't good." are perfect examples of the wrong reasons to add something to Wikipedia. It's just an encyclopedia, not a book of moral and tactical instruction.
 * We can't make things up like saying "using human shields to defend Hamas officials is unpopular". It has to be verifiable using reliable sources. Unpopular with who, who said it's unpopular and why etc etc.
 * You may think it's common sense but it isn't, it's your opinion. Did you know that Human Rights Watch came under fire from various commentators when they issued a press release "OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks" ? They were accused of denying Palestinians the right of non-violent resistance here. It was described as "surely the most shocking statement ever issued by a human rights organization, HRW indicted Palestinian leaders for supporting this nonviolent civil disobedience" here. HRW responded here.


 * So, the issue of human shields in Gaza isn't as black and white as you think, strange but true. There may be something in that HRW source that you can use. HRW is a reliable source in Wikipedia as long as you attribute the statements to them rather than use Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice. There are, no doubt, numerous sources that have made statements about human shields in Gaza.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. good job ur actually discussing, wish u did that last time
 * 2. many writings would note that organizations or nations such as Israel use human shields without giving any explanation of why exactly the action is wrong, as the action is already previously implied to be wrong. I've never seen anyone go around saying human shields are OK, while this page seems to pretend as if it was no one who thinks human shields are not OK, a clear violation of MAINSTREAM.
 * 3. it sure seems strange we can just leave a section full of praise towards Hamas for their supposed "victory." I just don't like the damn look of it, don't blame me. It might be in line with the policies, but that doesn't mean it needs to stay.
 * 4. those links are about cases where the human shields were actually killed. there was little effort trying to say human shields are OK, but much rather to say that killing human shields isn't OK. As much as those appear to have a point, they don't belong here.
 * 173.183.79.81 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that you understand and accept that as a matter of mandatory policy (WP:SOAP) of this project, we can't tell readers what is right and what is wrong ? It's not clear to me that you understand that absolutely crucial point about our role as editors. We show people what reliable sources have said about things. We don't tell people what to think. I would rather not discuss any details about the article unless I'm sure that you understand and agree to follow that policy. By the way, a clear violation of MAINSTREAM is not possible because that is an essay not a policy. There are many essays but just a handful of mandatory policies.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my point: this article gives a false impression that no one thinks human shields are wrong. Why would you think it should be like this?? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

IDF appeal of High Court decision against using human shields
I see it has been put back in. In response to the edit summary, however, I started this discussion section. Is there a problem with it as it is now? Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current mini-paragraph is fine, although there are unrelated issues raised in another section above. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

problem with ww2 section
If the 4th convention was held in 1949 ... how did a man serving during the Second World War (1939-1945) know using human shields would breech a convention not yet conceived?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume it's talking about the Third Geneva Convention from 1929 about POW's.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * see the first two sub-subsections of Geneva Convention (1929) -- PBS (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:V compliance and images
Can we get a reliable source that describes the File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Qalandiya Rioters Use Ambulance for Cover While Hurling Rocks (1).jpg image as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? Was the image (or a part of the same sequence) used in the press/human rights reports etc and described as an example of the use of human shields ? If so, we can cite that source and attribute the claim if necessary. Or can we replace the image with something similar where the source explicitly cites it as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? When images provided by belligerents in a conflict are used in this way with us synthetically concluding via our own interpretation that it's an example of X via the popular "it's obvious" procedure, we aren't complying with WP:V. There must be something out there that could serve the same purpose but comply with policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the picture and the video attached are pretty good evidences. Hiding behind a manned ambulance while using violence (hurling stones) is clearly a case of human shield. Anyway, the photo was also published in the Jerusalem Post and the incident was mentioned in Haaretz  ("The IDF obliged the request, holding its fire of tear gas canisters and directing the ambulance to the wounded Palestinian. Some of the demonstrators used the ambulance as cover to resume rock-throwing at IDF soldiers."  M ath K night   10:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll elaborate on why I think it's important to get this right. Using human shields is regarded as a war crime by the likes of the ICRC and many others. It's prohibited under international law. Does the image show a war crime being carried out ? Human shield use involves deliberately co-locating military targets and non-combatants to "render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations" during an armed conflict, things like that. Is that what is happening here or is it some people throwing some stones from behind an ambulance at some soldiers ? In order to be guilty of using human shields you need to be a combatant (or let's say not a non-combatant) in an armed conflict. Are these people combatants or non-combatants ? Saying something is an example of the use human shields, a war crime, is a very serious allegation. Surely we need a reliable source to say it, not us ? Jpost and Haaretz article don't mention human shields. The image itself and the caption are fine. They could probably be used in multiple articles. They just aren't fine in this article as far I'm concerned without an RS saying this is an example of human shield use. Palestinian militants and the IDF have used human shields extensively in the Israel-Palestine conflict according to RS so if we include a picture I think it should be an unambiguous example described as an instance of human shield use by an RS.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image show a war crime commited by the Palestinians stone-throwers. They take cover behind an ambulance in order to prevent the IDF from using riot-disperssion means (such as tear gas grenades) against them. You can imagine that if a tear grenade was shot towards them and hit the ambulance, the newspapers will show headlines such as "The IDF shots at ambulances". This is exactly one of the purposes of human shield tactic. Since Palestinians don't have official "combatants" (except from the police) every armed man who imposes danger by attacking people is a combatant. Stone throwers are somewhere betweem combatants and violent rioters, as stones can injured and even kill (some Israelies were killed in the past from stones and rock hurled on them by Palestinians and Israeli Arab rioters). I think that hiding behind a manned ambulance while attacking people (even if it is only stones and not gunfire) it is a case of human shield - they use civilian infrastructures (the ambulance) and people (the ambulance crew) to prevent the military to counter-attack them. I have some photoes of Palestinians gunmen shooting while surrounded with childern. The question is if they can be used here under fair-use?  M ath K night  12:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets." If the Palestinians are not combatants, then then they are not "combat targets", but civilians throwing stones. Doe Israeli security personnel treat captured stone throwers as prisoners of war until placed in front of a tribunal to decide their combatant status or does it hold such people on capture as common criminals?

Has anyone interviewed the people using the van for protection to ask them why they were doing so? Suppose that the van carried no markings, the van could be used in exactly the same way. So it is not the people in the van which are the shield but the van itself in which case it is a van shield not a human shield. If it is because the van is marked with a protective sign then the stone throwers are using a sign for protection not the occupants, in which case it is not a human shield.

All in all it is a very dubious image to use on this page as its connection to human shields is tangential at best. -- PBS (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * After more than a year a reliable source has not been produced to justify the presence of this image and caption according to mandatory policy. It has therefore been removed. It can be restored when there is a reliable source (i.e. not a wikipedia editor) that explicitly describes this as an example of using human shields i.e. a war crime.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly peace activists saved by heroic US Marine
The section marked "Tactic in peace campaigning" has its first paragraph end with the sentence, "Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the invasion of their country." This claim is backed by a citation from a book - one US Marine's personal account of his time in Iraq, which appears to be written with a heavy bias against both "antiwar nutcases" and Iraqis who just don't understand democracy. I would like to see claim this corroborated by a second, less biased source. Otherwise it does not seem like it belongs here, as it attaches a clear value judgment to the actions of the peace activists. Martin.fish (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Justified...HOW exactly?
Palestinians throwing STONES in a protest. Hiding from GUNFIRE behind an vehicle, which happens to be an ambulance, there because of the destruction Israeli soldiers are causing.

And this is an example of "Palestinians" using HUMAN shields?

Remove this at once. It's ridiculous Israeli POV pushing that doesn't even meet the standards for this article even if it wasn't fallacious bullshit. 124.168.249.244 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Throwing stones isn't a protest it is assoult with a deadly weapon Irishfrisian (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the point. The laws of war allow people engaged in a conflict to assault each other with deadly weapons. The question is whether this is an instance of the use of human shields, which is of course not allowed, and if it is an instance of the use of human shields, which reliable source (not a random person on the internet who edits Wikipedia) says that is the case. It has been discussed above in the Talk:Human_shield section. It's probably best to continue the discussion there.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a reference.
Pictures and video from the Gaza Strip have documented incident's of Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees using children as human shield, to prevent the IDF from firing over gunmen and Qassam rockets. During the recent conflict hamas spokesman have also defended the use of human shields

Human Shields
The article states: "The IDF admitted it had used Palestinians as human shields; it acknowledged using human shields 1,500 times during the Second Intifada (However, out of these 1,500 uses the Palestinian human shield was injured in one case only)" The source for the supposedly only case in which a Palestinian was injured is the IDF. How can the IDF, as the perpetrator of this crime, be a reliable source in this case? 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, though the IDF wasn't the actual perpetrator: yes, it did admit the members of it have used Palestinians as human shields, though the actual perpetrators were the Israeli soldiers. 109.149.214.62 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

One-sided article
I have several points: Oldstone James (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much accusations towards Israel - the article does not mention that almost all accused Israeli soldiers were punished. It also says that the UN has stated that 'almost all accused soldiers involved in the incidents have gone unpunished', which has no reliable sources (the source does not provide this information). Also, there are no points in the section to defend Israel, however most organisations including the UN tend to deny the usage of human shields by Israeli soldiers or admit punishment of the accused soldiers.
 * Too much defending of Hamas - the whole section only includes the denial of Hamas launching the rockets inside schools or hospitals, however even Hamas officials admit they did use human shields . Also, the article only gives examples, where Israeli accusations were incorrect (e.g. the case with two Norwegian Doctors), which may be considered as propaganda
 * Barely any accusations towards Hamas - in the section about Gaza, I did not find any points about Hamas using human shields

Order of competing claims for human shields
Please stop edit warring. Neither of you have opened a talk page discussion on this matter. Repeated reversion like this is unacceptable. Discuss, instead of just reverting back and forth. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: there was nothing wrong with the order prior to the edits by the IP. I'd like to see a policy-based reason why the order had to be changed froom the article's stable version. All Rows4 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked this question at Reference_desk/Humanities. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Human shields during 2014 war
I have removed the following from the section. ''The Washington Post described Al-Shifa hospital as a "de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." Nick Casey of the Wall Street Journal tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet. 

Firstly, Hamas is a political party, as well as the government in Gaza. A Hamas minister giving interviews inside a hospital is not an evidence of human shielding, nor has anyone claimed it is so. To insert it in the human shields section is WP:OR by juxtaposition. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post described the hospital as a "de facto headquarters", journalists have also reported being interrogated by armed guards there. This is highly relevant to the article, as governments are not permitted to use civilian infrastructure as "de-facto headquarters." Restoring the section. The Jerusalem post article is being restored as well. A more accurate description of the Wall Street Journal quote would be that it describes Hamas using Al-Shifa hospital as a "safe space to see media." Which violates the Geneva convention. I am adding additional sources to flesh out the information further. Drsmoo (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, when I reverted your edit, you simply reverted it back, simply violating WP:BRD. What is the point of me opening a talk page discussion if you revert anyway? As to the issues: I have already said, "de-facto headquarters" means nothing. If I am the Hamas minister of health, say, and I hang out in the hospital, there has nothing at all to do with human shielding. A Hamas minister is not a military target. If you feel that it is "highly relevant" to the article, then give a serious source which states that such an action is human shielding. The Washington Post article does not say so, and the JPost article is talking about tweets or something. These are legal issues, and not to be supported by offhand references like this. If it "violates the Geneva conventions", then find a source which says so, and connect it to human shielding. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a very strange thing for you to allege, I can't see any problem with reverting a problematic removal of information, adding additional information and weighing in on the talk page. As I recall, you reverted my edit on another article despite a talk page discussion, so I don't see any issue. Regarding your response, disingenuous comments about "tweets or something" are not valuable or constructive. Your claim that "de-facto headquarters means nothing" is not convincing. "De-facto headquarters" has a very clear meaning. The Washington Post described Al-Shifa hospital as a "de-facto headquarters", a Palestinian journalist was interrogated there by an armed guard, etc. This is widely covered and reported in multiple reliable sources. Feel free to bring this up on a dispute resolution board or any relevant noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some other references from reliable sources: Tablet Mag report that "one of Hamas’ main command bunkers is located beneath Shifa Hospital in Gaza City" http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180730/top-secret-hamas-command-bunker-in-gaza-revealed "Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga, for example, wrote an article for French newspaper Libération, published July 23, detailing how Hamas intimidated him, forcing him to leave Gaza, and how Hamas terrorists use a section of Shifa hospital, just a few meters from the emergency room, as their offices " http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/photographs-as-weapons-of-war-in-the-middle-east/375492/


 * Amnesty International also reported that: 'Hamas forces used the abandoned areas of al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, including the outpatients’ clinic area, to detain, interrogate, torture and otherwise ill-treat suspects, even as other parts of the hospital continued to function as a medical centre,'" the report added. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/hamas-accused-war-crimes-gaza-war-150527045950777.html

A primary source in the Amnesty article also writes "I went to al-Shifa hospital outpatients’ clinic where the Internal Security had a room. http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/embargoed_report_2015_strangling_necks.pdf Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure which other page you are referring to. Here is my understand of the way some material is added: you can correct me if I'm wrong. Someone adds the material, if it gets reverted, it means there is no consensus for it. Per WP:ONUS, the one who adds the material has to demonstrate consensus, not the person opposed to it.
 * Regarding your points: the Washington post article does not state that the hospitals were used as human shields, and neither does the Amnesty article. The phrase "human shields" does not appear in the Amnesty report. I am afraid that your statement that using the "abandoned areas of al-Shifa hospital" constitutes human shielding is classic WP:OR. Hamas committed many crimes in the Gaza war, but unless you find a source directly stating that this practice is human shielding, it is not correct. The Tablet Mag article is not useful either. It gives no independent evidence at all, but is simply commenting on the points which you have already mentioned. It is very long on speculation but very short on evidence. It is lamenting that reporters are not trying to sniff out this supposed "Hamas bunker" beneath the Al-Shifa hospital. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your descriptions of the articles contents are inaccurate. The Amnesty article describes Shifa hospital being used as a Hamas torture facility and an Internal Security office "even as other parts of the hospital continued to function as a medical centre". Tablet, which is a reliable source, describes Hamas as having a "main command bunker" below Shifa hospital. The Washington Post, which is also a reliable source describes Shifa Hospital as a "de-facto headquarters" for Hamas. The Jerusalem post article is headlined "Gaza reporters’ tweets: Hamas using human shields" this is yet another reliable source. This is a clear cut issue and there's no point in going in circles about it. Feel free to bring the issue up on a noticeboard or pursue any form of dispute resolution service. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the interest of addressing your points for the sake of consensus. You wrote: " Hamas committed many crimes in the Gaza war, but unless you find a source directly stating that this practice is human shielding, it is not correct." The following are several reliable sources directly describing Hamas' bunker below Shifa hospital as constituting human shielding during the 2014 conflict (also note that Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia, see No_original_research):


 * - Jerusalem Post: Gaza reporters’ tweets: Hamas using human shields
 * - Tablet Magazine: Top Secret Hamas Command Bunker in Gaza Revealed
 * - Algemeiner: Finnish Journalist Who Confirmed Hamas Using Al Shifa Hospital to Launch Rockets Dismayed Viral Coverage Ignores Her Intended Narrative
 * - Times of Israel: Unable to kill Israelis with rockets, Hamas wants the IDF drawn deeper into Gaza


 * These are all reliable sources directly documenting Hamas use of human shields as they relate to al Shifa hospital. This is in addition to the multiple sources reporting on Hamas' use of al Shifa hospital for military purposes. Drsmoo (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Section on 2008 war
I have rearranged, condensed and expanded the section on the 2008 war.


 * Put independent reports like the UN and Amnesty International at the top.
 * Then Israel/ITIC's allegations.
 * Removed a redundant UN/Amnesty sentence, kept the Magen David Adom sentence because it is responding to a specific claim.
 * Removed a lot of detail about the allegations, kept a summary. Removed Youtube link as source.
 * The Al-Fakhura incident already has a page. Condensed it heavily, just putting the conclusions.
 * Added sources from law journal reviewing the situation.

Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Rockets in UNRWA schools in human shields section
Your edit here is WP:OR. Human shielding has a specific meaning in international humanitarian law: many conditions need to be satisfied: someone deliberately uses civilians to shield themselves from attack, there should be choices of battlefield etc. One cannot arbitrarily infer from Gunness's statement that there was human shielding. It is logically impossible for an empty school to provide human shielding in any case. It is of course forbidden to use UN schools for storing weapons, but that does not constitute human shielding by itself. The UN investigation did not accuse Hamas of human shielding in this case. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullshit - you have no idea what you are talking about. Storing weapons in a civilian facility - and thus putting civilians  in harms way is EXACTLY the definition of human shields.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide evidence that it is human shielding. International law as interpreted by an anonymous handle on the internet is not sufficient. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a read: " “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2] " - https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule97. Are you alling UN representative a liar? He has explicitly said Hamas actions in so storing the  rockets placed civilians in harms way. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What Christopher Gunness said doesn't mean it is human shielding and this point is detailed already in the first sentence here above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The UN concluded that no rockets were stored in populated schools, so the practice doesn't fit the human shield description. By the way, I'm reverting the mass deletion of content related to the Israel-Palestine subsections, which was clearly inspired by pro-Israel partisanship. Rafe87 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but can someone post a link to where this was concluded by the UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.110.81.124 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Condensation
I have reverted the article back to the version before made their changes. There has been continuous edit-warring since then over this. Speaking for myself, I do not oppose drastically condensing both sides of the conflict: the I/P section is vastly bigger than others on this page. I suggest that someone propose a scheme first, on the talk page, on what should be mentioned here, and prune content based on that scheme. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, so what specifically was wrong with my edits? --Monochrome _ Monitor  20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It failed to find consensus. That's what. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, me and an anon agree. You disagree is not "failing to find a consensus". Plus, I'm far more nuetral than you are.--Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  22:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not me - I did not revert your changes in the beginning. The edit was reverted by . I will give simply one example of what I see as inconsistency in your actions. You say in this edit, that it is "outrageous" that specific incidents are mentioned. Yet, in the material you retained, there are such specific incidents - the whole chunk of text starting from "France24 confirmed" and "French-Palestinian journalist..." is nothing but a series of incidents, which comprises a huge bulk of the section. As I stated above, I do not disagree with cutting down the section drastically, but there has to be some scheme for deciding what is to be kept and what isn't. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll cut down incidents in both. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The new version is better, but there are still many many issues. This is why I said, lay out a scheme here, so people can decide whether it is reasonable and or consistently followed. See my latest edits, quoting the UN and a law journal article. Perhaps more needs to be done. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be re-inserting the content. Monitor's edits are blatantly pro-Israel. The recommended entry has not 1/100 of the content previously used on this entry. Rafe87 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The excuse used by Monitor to remove the content - that the content for Taliban human shield use is smaller - is itself indicative of such bias. And by the way, if WEIGHT is to be used here, then the section for human shield use by Palestinians should be smaller, much smaller, than that of Israel, since Israel's human shield use is extensively documented while Palestinian human shield use is not, and much of the reference to it from the UN, the media, and so forth, is either to just relay IDF accusations (accusations that are suspicious to begin with) or to deny that it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Two more instances
Use of human shields by US troops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River#The_role_of_Indian_noncombatants_in_Custer.27s_strategy

It was also reported that 'rebel' towns were using human shields in 2015 to prevent air attacks, by placing captured civilians in cages in public areas. Many examples from a search for "syria captured cages rebel", like http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/syria-cages-human-shields/ 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Human shields used by the Islamic State in Ramadi: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-forces-sweep-ramadi-landmark-victory-081116436.html 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070810122713/http://web.amnesty.org:80/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jc0DHbDsRG83m4stW9JdpHz3hxSw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jc0DHbDsRG83m4stW9JdpHz3hxSw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140220065054/http://www.penguin.co.uk:80/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141003887,00.html to http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141003887,00.html
 * Added tag to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/48a40ca00c3be03d85256c910074441f!OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813152033/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231235450/http://ejpress.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49892 to http://ejpress.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49892
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727185225/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/017/2014/en/5b79b682-8d41-4751-9cbc-a0465f6433c3/mde150172014en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/017/2014/en/5b79b682-8d41-4751-9cbc-a0465f6433c3/mde150172014en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727185225/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/017/2014/en/5b79b682-8d41-4751-9cbc-a0465f6433c3/mde150172014en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/017/2014/en/5b79b682-8d41-4751-9cbc-a0465f6433c3/mde150172014en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lebanon-1982/2006
Here is why I am editing as I am. The 1982 example does NOT give an example of civilians being used to SHIELD combatants from attack. It merely describes an incident in which a besieged population refused to evacuate a camp. Logically, every case in history of a human habitation under attack (such as in a siege) should be called a case of "human shielding"!

The 2006 example, similarly, does not show any civilians at all in the photos. The charge of human shielding in 2006 is consistently contradicted by third-party sources such as independent human rights organizations, the UN, and US army studies-many of these sources are partial to Israel, and they frequently rely on interviews with Israeli soldiers. Apparently, the whole world lies except the Israeli government! One U.S. Army study cited by Professor Finkelstein acknowledges that Hezbollah was located in cities and towns in Southern Lebanon (again, this may be a mere means of self-defense) but also writes that these areas were largely evacuated and that Hezbollah relied on natural and artificial terrain for cover in its successful fight against the Israeli army.

The photos, if they show Hezbollah (questionable as they claim to depict Christian areas) are consistent with this interpretation.

It is hard to see how human shielding could have been effective at all when General Dan Halutz had declared that "Nothing is safe, as simple as that".

I have edited the part about the Chris Link article appropriately-for the area mentioned of Beirut played no part in the war at all, in contrast to South Lebanon where the war took place-and claims of systematic human shielding are consistently denied by third party sources.70.190.102.49 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the unnamed user is talking about. The source in question is simply the Chris Link article itself. It makes clear that he did NOT take the photographs himself. It makes clear what he himself cites as the location for the alleged incidents of human shielding. Again, there are no civilians in the photos shown.70.190.102.49 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked the 1982 case. There is no real evidence there of civilians being used to shield combatants. Logically, every siege should be considered a case of human shielding. A siege alone combined with a warning simply does not constitute shielding except to Zionists.70.190.102.49 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But this wasn't just any siege. Civilians were warned to leave, and prevented from doing so at gunpoint.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0%2C%2C9780141003887%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704025425/http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1235&CategoryId=1 to http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1235&CategoryId=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Shields
I checked the sources for the language I changed - "used themselves as human shields" - one link is dead and the other did not use that language. The language is not insignificant, because it enters into an area that is currently being debated by legal scholars about whether voluntary human shields are protected persons, and if so, to what extent and under what circumstances. If you have a problem with the language I chose, please don't revert back to this but change it to something that accurately reflects the sources provided, in your estimation. Seraphim System ( talk )

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810122713/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021163100/http://www.mezan.org/upload/2619.pdf to http://www.mezan.org/upload/2619.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021163015/http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=2619&ddname=crimes&id_dept=22&id2=9&p=center to http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=2619&ddname=crimes&id_dept=22&id2=9&p=center
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004235900/http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707135133/http://www.anasimtiaz.com/2009/12/05/remembering-bilal-riaz/ to http://www.anasimtiaz.com/2009/12/05/remembering-bilal-riaz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824131146/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517040057/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517040057/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531235821/http://geo.tv/12-4-2009/54096.htm to http://www.geo.tv/12-4-2009/54096.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Amnesty International is aware of these claims, and continues to monitor and investigate reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. '''As explained above, in previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip, and available evidence indicates that they continue to do both during the current hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople have reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate.''' However, in light of the lack of clarity in many of the Israeli warnings on safe routes for civilians to evacuate, the lack of shelters or other safe places in the Gaza Strip for them to go to, and numerous reports of civilians who did heed the warnings and flee doing so under Israeli fire, such statements by Hamas officials could have been motivated by a desire to avoid further panic. In any case, public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law is clear that even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups associated with other factions did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives from attacks, all of Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.

--יניב הורון (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um no, that is all directly quoted from the AI report Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction, which you may read for yourself here. The relevant quote on page 4 being"However, contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants."The book cited for the record was published by University of California Press. It is on its face a rock solid source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Though it belongs in 2009 not 2014. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It says clearly DOCUMENT - ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES: ISRAEL/GAZA CONFLICT, JULY 2014. Not "Cast Lead".--יניב הורון (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The passage from Finkelstein is not about that. It is about 'Cast Lead', and it is referring to this document from Amnesty: Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is overwhelming evidence Israel has used Palestinian human shields for 5 decades, and feigning ignorance is no excuse since it was documented in suits brought before Israel's High Court of Justice, which outlawed, ineffectively, the practice, as every Israeli knows. There has been no evidence Hamas or any other Palestinian group deploys the tactic. Those are the facts. As to out articles, they have a huge citational load of newspapers from talking heads, for every war with Hamas, spouting hasbara about the latter's use of human shields, and hardly any coverage of the known reality that Israeli soldiers, not Hamas militants, avail themselves of this strategy. So our articles are wittingly constructed to invert reality, and confound the known, austerely analysed factual record.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, requesting a neighbor to open a door is not a use of a human shield.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, you never read the October 2005 judgement of the Supreme Court. Technically, it is not a neighbor who makes the request: it is the IDF with its superb record of soldierly cowardice, compelling at gunpoint one armed person's 'neighbour' to knock on his neighbour's door and pass on a message from the guys with the machine guns some way down the street. In Israel it is called purity of arms, as you know, the arms of death that embrace the messenger.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Bluestar: Removed "Human Shield" claim
India attacked with a frontal assault, knowing there were civilians, against the military advice of the UK. The origin of the "human shield" claim is unknown due to India's media lockdown during the operation. I've removed it until we can find a WP:RS that states who made this claim. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The content is reliably source to a neutral third party author and publisher. Kindly dont remove sourced content if you dont like it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The source repeats the Indian government's view of events with in-text attribution. That is considered a primary source, and especially egregious one (consider that India had a media blackout during the operation). To satisfy WP:SECONDARY, the sources need to present their own interpretation of events. Another problem with that section of the article is that it fails WP:BALANCE by not mentioning that India was advised against a frontal ground assault by the United Kingdom, to which the UK attributed the casualties. Quote: But in a statement to MPs, William Hague indicated that the advice was ignored by the Indian army, which launched a ground assault with no element of surprise, causing a heavy loss of life. . --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Neve Gordon
Dear nableezy. Gordon is very controversial. I will remove Business insider if it's not reliable. ShukranFathiyimah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what? See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a professor in international law and relations writing in a book published by a university press is a reliable source. Calling him "controversial" means nothing and is likewise based on nothing. Gordon is a reliable source, full stop. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not into the palestine conflict but there has been a lot of turmoil about him.Fathiyimah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is very much not any indication of unreliability. Again, please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That is one of the very best sources in the article and it should not be removed with such a spurious claim. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy I remember reading about this guy since his articles appeared on the neo nazi Zundel site and others.Fathiyimah (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop the crap. The devil can quote scripture for his own purposes. By that illogic, Mephistopheles invalidates the Bible by merely quoting it (we don't need such diabolic sources for that, if we have common sense). What is putatively  'controversial' is not Neve Gordon, a moderate scholar, but rather the facts he draws upon. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Why put a very controversial's (besides the Zundel scandal there was more as I remember) material at the main article? I haven't removed him though.Fathiyimah (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gordon is not "very controversial" and a professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University of London writing about international law and human rights in a book published by the University of California Press is a reliable source. The end. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not every professor is reliable. Stating he is on the extreme is not from me. And his work pertains to more to palestinians. Which is not my material. And not in main page.Fathiyimah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It very much is from you, and yes, a professor writing in his area of expertise in a book published by a university press is reliable. Please read WP:RS and kindly stop substituting your personal politics in the place of our policies. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

My views are irrelevant. I quote what I remember the noise controveesy about him especially after the zundel thing. This page should be ovrall a general source. It should be about human shields. I ask you please don't start edit wars here.Fathiyimah (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your views are irrelevant. Gordon is an obviously reliable source. WP:RS is pretty clear on this point. Scholarship forms the basis of our articles. Your recent edits here have honestly kind of destroyed this page, we are not supposed to be filling encyclopedia articles with every news piece you can find that mentions human shields. I dont really want to spend the time removing all that noise, but I will not sit by as you remove the actual quality sources that are still in this article. I do not care about what you the noise controveesy about him especially after the zundel thing. Gordon, writing in a book published by a university press, is among the best sources cited in the article. Do not remove it again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy. I see you have been on wikipedia for long. So if you have cases of human shields especially Arab civilians, unrelated to falastin, please let me know. Shukran.Fathiyimah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not try to remove Gordon's book since then. Even though he was controversial for so long. Fathiyimah (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

New Material
The expression "human shield" is by now a general descriptive term used of any enemy, thrown as a suspicion or interpretation of any arising incident. Nearly all of the new material has come up from news sources that cite spokesmen using this term to throw suspicion on another state's behavior. The bits about Iran's maintenance of civilian flights after the US attack is a case in point. We really should restrict coverage to known, independently verified examples of the use of humans as shields, otherwise we will have the Hamas issue repeated with every state, i.e. a bluster of accusations that, on examination, fall the pieces since they fail verification. One can't just google away "human shield"+Houthi, "human shield"+Iran, etc to get ammo for the proposition that all actors not aligned with US policy use human shields. The additions that fail serious sourcing should be removed. In short, if it ain't in Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, which cover this minutely, it shouldn't be here, and therefore reverted out.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

'All' Human Shields allegations
All human shields should be included. It is why France on Algerian Arabs or Myanmar which I added. Etc. It should not be political or selective. Fathiyimah (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any HRW opinion on Israel should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm surprised you said about France. All colonial regimes are maybe guilty of that. Wbiases (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Another point. Why do you have some 40 % of your global page dedicated to anti Israel? Wbiases (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HRW is likewise a reliable source, and Israel's use of human shields is rather well documented]. The material on Israel is also covered by ARBPIA and may not be modified by editors with fewer than 500 edits. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think nashibi, nabeezy, and wbiases should talk it out on a Palestine talk page. Not here.Fathiyimah (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti Israel "page" rant
Besides the rang of anti israel biased groups "reports" or betselem "activists" claims, the page is riddled with an anti usafel rant. User Nableezy even removed the criticism. Facts of BDS links should also be noted. Wbiases (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean reliable sources. Sorry, but we arent in the habit of ignoring reliable sources because some random person on the internet dislikes them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear wbiases. I mainly posted about Human shields and not about Palestinian-Israeli conflict relating to it. I think both of you should discuss it on talk pages of that conflict. Fathiyimah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the sock has been indefinitely banned, the page will have to be cleansed of their edits.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , The editor that introduced this edit was not a sock. Anyhow if you have other WP:RS that have different POV then please introduce them --Shrike (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a sock but anyone with experience of this area should be able to see what is obvious, that this chap was a sock, as yet not exposed, but a sock behaviourally. Now it is proven. Don't persist in supporting this chronic abuse.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To repeat your edit summary says introduce RS. My edit summary named an RS which, no one has to my knowledge denied his point, that the 2014 claims of Hamas using human shields turned out to be unverifiable and unbelievable. What Aroma Stylist, a POV pusher of indifferent ability, put in was just junk reflecting that period. This is an encyclopedia, not a storehouse for ephemeral news speculation which later scholarship and secondary sources has shown to be mere empty claims. Please read the pages I linked to Finkelstein 2018 pp.69ff. Clearly I n reverting you hadn't read the page because Finkelstein is cited here note 104Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of that tripe because this is a generic article, and has been taken over by paste and copy editors (poaching material from other articles) who dedicate half of it to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The book by Neve Gordon and Perugine which is specifically on this theme has no such disproportion: to the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the Abbas statement on Hamas?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's trivia. Politicians are not historians, the PLO has a grievance with Hamas, and its statements are as tedious to read as those of Hamas re the PLO, or Israel's about both and vice versa. Wikipedia articles on these current topics are composed instantaneously with the flow of 'news breaks', which are, in situations of conflict, almost totally political spin. Some of that may prove to have longterm interest, but essentially articles should focus on ascertained facts and the structure of events, two things which emerge long after the dust has settled. Tens of thousands of sources can be summoned from that period about Hamas using human shields. Serious groundwork by  NGO research bodies, and scholars, has since shown that it is not a Hamas practice (just as Israeli courts have shown that Israel, following British Mandatory precedent, has adopted it quite frequently). So the section Israeli-Palestinian conflict really can be summed up laconically as
 * "Numerous claims that both Israel and Palestinian factions have resorted to the use of human shields. It is a known technique in garnering public support for any side. Examples of the former's use of hostages to that end have been proven in Israeli courts. To date, evidence the PLO or Hamas engages in the tactic have either not been verified, or shown to be without any basis."
 * This phenomenon is extremely widespread globally, and one natural difficulty for its deployment in Palestinian areas is that the technique would make popular support plummet - since the factions base consensus on democratic elections, when circumstances allow (as opposed to some instance of directing suicide bombings, an execrable variation of the tactic of dressing militants as civilians in order to massacre other civilians). The fundamental Israeli thesis is that, whenever Hamas and Israel are at war, militants of the former group should walk away from the urban/suburban areas which constitute most of the Strip, dig trenches in fields, and shoot like men, as Israel with its airforce, total electronic surveillance systems, automated border computerized machine gun technologies, can shoot them without (a) exposing its own soldiers - far from the fray and using basically drones and aerial warfare- to risks and (b) and without incurring blame for the 'collateral damage' caused by urban warfare. This lunatic assumption or presumption has no precedent I know of in the history of warfare.
 * The purpose of this article has been consistently violated by showcasing a conflict that has almost nothing to do with human shield use (it is relatively rare even in recent IDF history). It should return to its proper comparative focus, on all examples around the globe where the device has been deployed. And this should be done fairly. The bit about the Yemenese Houthi is decontextualized from the known fact that the Saudi airforce has indiscriminately bombed their area back to the stone-age, and does not discriminate between civilians and militants. Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Due abuse
Aroma Stylist. Give me your reasons for restoring a huge amount of outdated news reportage on claims about human shield use among Hamas, when to date, no independent authority has ever ascertained this to be a Hamas practice?

This article had a huge amount of material on Palestinian human shields,-  when it is mere speculation- while neglecting any effort to expand coverage where this has been shown to be employed around the world. As such repeated attempts to jam the article with this tripe violates WP:Due. You just cannot shovel that mess back in without grounding the edit in a reasoned explanation of its necessity. If you can't give a policy based reason why an exception should be made, it will be removed.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable / Political Agenda Sources
Because of the sensitivity of this page, that shows war crimes made by country/ groups/ people, I think that there should be an article about the reliability of sources, and the intreset of groups to show thier cause is right, there are a lot of known false reports on human shield usage, and I belive it will help reader to reduce false information and by that not fall to false accusation.


 * I know there is already an article about misinformation, but there is no linking in this page between them.


 * If someone understood my words wrongly: I am not against reports by political ajenda groups, (like hamas and BDS who clearly has agenda to show IDF makes war crimes using human shield. Or IDF who clearly has agenda to show that Hamas makes war crimes using human shield). but I think this should be noted, and that there will be an article about unreliable and politic agenda information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.13.187 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncited information.
"According to many observers, including B'tselem, the IDF repeatedly used Palestinians as human shields. This practice became military policy during the Second Intifada, and was only dropped when Adalah challenged the practice before Israel’s High Court of Justice in 2002. though the IDF persisted in using Palestinians in its 'neighbor procedure', whereby people picked at random were made to approach the houses of suspects and persuade them to surrender, a practice which arguably placed the former's lives in danger."

This has no cited source in the article. For the part immediately after, the source, B'Tselem, is a more than questioned source here:

https://www.jpost.com/operation-protective-edge/btselems-gaza-war-statistics-under-fire-by-right-wing-israeli-groups-371590

https://jcpa.org/article/btselem-less-reliability-credibility/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:35A6:9B86:F8FF:6C58 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)