Talk:List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Gaza War

biased Editors
I don't want this article to be deleted ever. This is a good document describing the ongoing war. What's wrong with that! unless Zionist editor are involved--علي سمسم (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the presentation nor is it one sided. Please feel free to add to the article but please don't just cut things short because you can't make an argument. ! truly Hamas is just a militia with some home made rockets and Israel is an organized Army! what's wrong with mentioning that!--علي سمسم (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

The Israeli civilians have the iron dome, warning systems and shelters while the Palestinian Civilians do NOT. what's wrong with that ?1 why on earth is it one sided presentation?!! If these facts hurt please try to refute them but just don't remove it because it hurts the "image" of Israel. Wikipedia is not not about Israel's Image!!!!!!!!! This is not the CNN or Fox News.--علي سمسم (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WE NEED TO REMIND THE RELENTLESS EDITOR ON THIS PAGE THAT PALESTINIANS ARE NOT LESS HUMANS THAT ISRAELIS. They do have families, lives and strong aspirations for freedom from the Jewish siege/occupations to their lands. They too deserve a place on Wikipedia same as those murdered 3 usurper Jewish colonists living illegally against the international law on the Palestinian West Bank.! --علي سمسم (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Please don't get personal, or proclaim a cause. No one reads this. What editors are obliged to read are references to standard wiki rules and procedures, rigorous use of RS, and observance of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, even if one has good reason to suspect that good faith might not be quite an adequate assumption.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

POV
Some points to take care of:
 * Most of the sources are not show balanced point of the event, but lead pro-Hamas line and even anti-Israeli line (Ma'an, "The Gurdian").
 * where is the lead pro-Hamas line? change the anti-Israeli line --علي سمسم (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of the shown casualties are actually militants and not just civilians, and separation is really needed.
 * How do you know. Do you have sources. Israel uses shelling ny drones and airplanes in residential areas. Please add the sources--علي سمسم (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that many pieces of information isn't real, but published as propaganda and come here as the real situation.For like the one I found and I belive the in the list is more like that.
 * where is this propaganda in the article. Please point out? you your words are like a POV itself --علي سمسم (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There isn't noting of "Roof Knocking" that in some incidents, people are ignored from this alert.Moreover Hamas called to the people to stand on the roof to be "Human Shield", what probably affect their safety, saying the least.
 * This is a stark Israeli propaganda itself. Who on earth would obey Hamas or even the devil and stand waiting for death on the roofs. Do you have references that confirm this claim. I have one from a Jewish human (betselem) rights org that declares Israel have used Palestinian civilians as human shield in the second Intefada...please see http://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields

Moreover I think that this article not worthy of Wikipedia.
 * Why? because it may exposes some Zionist crimes against the occupied Palestinians. The Palestinians are not any less human that the Israelis> This whole war started over the abduction and murder of some "usurper colonists" that live by force on a land that is internationally considered belonging to the Palestinians. I think you are biased in this whole argument. --علي سمسم (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Gunrpks (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have nominated it for deletion, because it is a one-sided POV-fork. You may wish to comment here: Articles for deletion/List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge Brad Dyer (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is one sided. make it neutral then. :) just don't delete the whole thing. The whole Wikipedia is full of Incidents and Jewish Victims of the terrorist Palestinians. How many pages in English Wikipedia list the victims of terrorist Israel! --علي سمسم (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

first rt (2) second rt (3) rt (4) fourth rt (5) fifth rt (6) sixth rt I won't report you for this, but I'd advise you not to touch the page for 24 hours. If you do so it is probable that someone will notice the contempt for rules this kind of behaviour exemplifies and ask that you be sanctioned. Any arbitrator, if it comes to his notice, can suspend you.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gunrpks. The article is under construction. I am providing details from whatever mainstream source gives them, of Palestinian casualties and the accompanying Israeli strikes. Both The Guardian and Ma'an News Agency are RS. If anything Ma'an gives details, and does not editorialize, unlike many of the sources used to edit in the Israeli POV in the sister article.
 * If you have information indication that all of the named people were 'militants' (whatever that means) you may provide it. So far mainstream sources are extremely vague on the attribution of membership to Hamas or Islamic Jihad of the women, children, old men, and youths killed. When I find these details, I invariably supply them, as can be seen in my editing history.
 * Your argument that what is given here is 'propaganda' is meaningless. Because you give no examples of (a)where I distorted the text (b)why that text is not RS.
 * YOu say I don't note Roof Knocking. This remark indicates that your hostility to the article never got beyond the first paragraph, which you removed. I do mention 'roof knocking' and I am so unideological that I did so giving three different version in sources for the same event where 'roof knocking' is mentioned.
 * The sources I used nowhere mention Hamas asking people to stand on the roof. The sources give conflicting accounts of why they went there, and who went there. I got by sources, not by IDF handouts, which are unacceptable as RS.
 * You are quite within your rights to consider this article in the making 'not worthy of wikipedia' (like many editors). However, in stating that you should feel obliged to explain here why you strongly object to this list both here and on the deletion page, and yet you yourself contributed significantly to a list of this kind (here, here here and here). It's called double standards.
 * Finally, I posted on this talk page a notification that this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. After I did that you continued to revert material on the page, and now you are at your sixth revert.

Hello Nishidani and علي سمسم. First of all I want to react about the sentence you say I think that israeli are more human then Palestinians, I totally against Such statements that Reminiscent of dark times. this is a real problem that people (much less then you think) belive in that opinion, and we have to fight them. I hope that in someday the peace will come to our area. About the point I wrote and Ali comment me:
 * Maybe the expression "pro-Hamas" is ok, but "pro-Palestinian" isn't accurate too, because the West Bank is palestinian but not relating directly to this war. If I could to change the political line here I would do that, but again, I'm too inside this operation and it will be really hard to me.
 * I am quite sure there is a very strong relation between this war and the long-time occupation/colonization of the west bank. What sparked this war was the kidnap and murder of the 3 jewish settler teenagers and the reactions that followed from both sides. This war would not have happened if there was a strict policy in Israel that control it's populace from trespassing into the palestinians lands. . I would even assert that what holds peace from happening in the region is the continual expansion and construction of new illegal settlements on a land considered palestinian under international law. I guess a man can always have the right to defend himself if the international laws got his back!. But, sorry that's not the case here.But, sorry that's not the case here. The entire world represented in very respectable international organizations sees the confiscation of land in the west bank by "Israeli populace" as a criminal act. you don't expect a war to happen if you shot a criminal trespassing on your land,do you?! unfortunately that only happens when a rogue state incites its citizens against a defenceless occupied/colonized populace urging them to steal palestinian lands!.
 * I do think that the settlements is bad for Israel and Palestine, but I don't talk about them. I had talk about that the interests of the organization in Gaza (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and in the West Bank (Fatah, Palestinain Goverment) is diffrent rigth now, it means that saying "pro-Palestiain" not purpose just for one thing, what make confusion. Gunrpks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please exert some extra effort and change the political lines that really bothered you here in this article. All I see in the article just some accounts for some casualties. and a stark fact: There is no balance what so ever between the combating sides. It is even a farce to call it "War"!--علي سمسم (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask Nishidani about that, maybe he want to suspend you too.Gunrpks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Source that militants are between the casualties in the operation? Quote from the BBC:Palestinian reports say. Reuters news agency said the victims were militants from Islamic Jihad.(link). Of couse this is just drop in the ocean, but I can demand that any name you say need Prove that he no militant.


 * When you do mention word "Militant"...I do imagine a vision in my mind of a "palestinian militant in action"... " A palestinian holding a weapon or standing beside a rocket launcher at Israel in some combat field in gaza"...but many of those so called "Militants" actually died off-action at their homes with their families (women and children are among the casualties) ....that does not make him a "active combattant" in the ongoing war...Yes, One of these "militant" was an old former retired member of Islamic Jihad. I guess Israel may have the right to kill only those who are active in the combat against Israel! besides, I guess you can't make a clear distinction in Israel between civilians and militants as the whole population at one point in time had passed through conscription in the IDF. Much of the civilians in Israel can be considered former "Militants"!--علي سمسم (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The targets of the 2 types of "militants" you say here is diffrent.On One hand, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are Terror organization that their goal is to destroy Israel and the way is to heart them anyway they can. Most of their actions is fires rockets into Population centers(Ashdod, Be'er Sheva, Tel Aviv...) for injury/kill citizens.On other hand, IDF attacking very specific targets who directly related to the terror actions of Hamas, in goal to avoid Destruction and loss of life. In this actions of IDF he try to avoid impacts in Uninvolved people, for example "Roof knocking".Of course, he can't Completely avoid, regrettably, from heart them. this is the diffrent between Terror oranization and democracy.Gunrpks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * An example to wrong information I found is that Israel use Jericho missile, this is totally foolishness, Jericho is ballistic missile for more then 400 Km! Moreover the noteing of Owen Jones is problematic.
 * The article never claimed that Israel used the Jericho 2 missiles on the palestinians in gaza. What I understood from the article that the IDF is equipped with Jericho missiles. Why is the note about Owen Jones Problematic? do see the media coverage in USA - for example - neutral and unbiased?! Claiming that media coverage in the US is unbiased is not even logic. Most of the stakeholder in these tycoon "news agencies" are zionist jews!..Robert Murdock is just an example!--علي سمسم (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So why to say that??!! this is joke. So why you not say that IDF have a new version of tents? or the specific model of Hama's lamps?? If I look in CNN I would feel one thing and in Fox News something else. Wikipedia isn't a place to opinion of publicists, from any side.Gunrpks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Roof Knocking" isn't propaganda at all. This is real actions are in IDF use, and of course source.


 * You said : "Hamas" called on the civilians to gather on the roofs to use them as human shields...that's what I referred to as Israeli propaganda...not the "Roof Knocking". Sorry I can't buy this. People may have gathered for many other reasons...the accounts are conflicting, but this one concerning Hamas using them as human shields is ultimately unlogic. A sane man never steps towards his doom! --علي سمسم (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the video.

And now for Nishidani:
 * I noteing "Ma'an" and "The Guardian" for 2 reasons: 1. They are the only ones who you are using here, this is not smells good (and no, one "ynet" and one AJ it's not enough). 2.The political line of "The Guardian" is known as not positive for israel and Ma'an is the Palestinian News Agency. I don't say they aren't RS but we have to scrutinise the information they giving about this subject.
 * I, like most Wikipedia readers, can't know exactly who of the casualties are actually militants (and militants mean who, just for example, fired rockets to Population centers in purpose to heart Innocent civilians (like me)). We both know that any army who attacking in urban areas would killed civilians (what include children , women and old men), this is inevitable, regrettably.
 * About "Rook knocking" I write before but see this video, yes IDF film this but video is video, you can't say this is not real.

If you think that threat is the way to make this article more balanced, I don't Argue. This is hearing really good method to manage Wikipedia. I hope we can talk more to the point then our leaders. And please don't react inside my comment but after. Gunrpks (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you satisfy my curiosity? In some paragraphs you write, the English is perfect. In others, as in your contributions to this talk page, you make the most basic errors.
 * Since you did not reply to my remarks, I confirm what I said above. Ma'an News, as I said, is far more neutral in its factual reportage than The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, Ynet, and often Haaretz. As to the Guardian, being pro-Israel is not one of the criteria for qualifying as RS. Secondly, unusually, the Guardian has a paid editor to parse articles to ensure Israel is never referred to in prejudicial terms, and to respond to readers who might object to their reportage from Israel.
 * In short, you have not made a case for your tag, that this article, which is a factual register of incidents, and victims, is POV. Unless you can indicate specifically where your concrete reservations lie, the use of the tag is inappropriate. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My English it isn't the issue here. I said My opinion about the Guardian from what I read from here, and I don't think that he necessarily more neutral then the Israeli's news agencys.Maybe they have this editor but you put in the article opinion article, this is not a report.
 * When I add the POV tag I do that because I saw many thing that warn me from this article neutrallity, saying this is a "lie" this is impact the rigth for doubtfulness, and this is without your nonproportional warnings to suspend me. I didn't do nothing with Bad intention and if i heart someone it was innocently.Gunrpks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you can specify by concrete examples what is, in wikipedia's terms, problematical, the POV tag remains an example of drive-by tagging and can be removed. So far you admit that some of your original objection were wrong. So please restate or formulate objections to the article. So far all I can see is an attitude of dislike and an a priori judgement that this is not neutral because you are not familiar with the data, which is however, reliably sourced. Please address the issues. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for further discussion on the probity or not of the POV tagging. Three days have passed. At the AfD more than half the comments cannot detect an issue on this. Unless serious discussion continues I shall consider the question settled, and remove it. The AfD tag will of course remain as per wikilaw.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no 'relevant discussion' is taking place, I will consider the dispute 'resolved' unless a serius attempt is made shortly to justify the assertion, which most editors cannot see.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Title breaks WP:NPOV
If this article is kept through the AfD then the title needs to be changed "List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge" implies that Israel is the aggressor, there have been Israli injuries and civilian deaths as a indirect/direct result of the rocket attacks by Hamas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lists of Palestinian rockets fired into Israel by year (11 of them) imply the Palestinian population is the aggressor, whereas there have been Palestinian injuries and civilian deaths as a direct result of Israeli strikes in the Gaza Strip. Arguments are cogent when the logic and the judgements are coherent over the field. They are dead on arrival if they are aimed at one side in a conflict. I didn't notice your remark here because I was editing the page, but considered it should be removed, and have done so, because relentless additional unilateral tagging tends to look, whatever the intent, 'instrumental'.   Almost all I/P articles deserve POV tagging - simply because most editors ignore the project. The best solution to a POV impression is to help out, not to place a brandmark and move on.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a list of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge. That is what it is. If you are going to argue that it shouldn't be that, it's a different argument, an argument that applies to many articles as Nishidani said.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with Nishidani and Sean.hoyland. Nothing needs to be changed here. The article deals with a specific topic in this conflict, so why broaden the scope? If you want to create an article about the Israeli injuries, feel free to do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep
This does not seem to be the standard page to vote for or against deletion. I came to the Wikipedia because I imagined that there I would find the most comprehensive and up to date list of Palestinian casualties of Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge. This page provides the information I was searching for. I think this page provides the information that it claims to provide. It does not promise to present the list of Israeli casualties of Operation Protective Edge because that wouldn't make sense. I find it to be NPOV because it is just a list of strikes and the names of casualties. It is not claiming that Operation Protective Edge is immoral and anti-human and part of a history of oppression against the Palestinian people etc. nor is it claiming that the Palestinians want all Jewish people dead and Israel has a right to protect itself or any other claims about the rightness or wrongness of the action. It just presents in a list, the names of Palestinians who have been killed during this operation. It does strike me that the desire to delete this information is, in itself, not neutral and is ideologically driven. If the article were about a list of fictional Jedi Knights who had been killed by the Empire or what have you, I doubt people would be wanting to delete it because it wasn't neutral. But the lists would be the same in that they presented information about casualties.  S a u d a d e 7  17:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I can not disagree more. I came to this page for some research I am doing testing theories with empirical data. I did not find much of use here that wasn't copy+pasted / lifted from PCHR or other sources, where it was better organized. The amount of citations that involve quotes from the same source might even be a copyright issue. The page in its current state is made problematic (and not just useless)by statements such as this "A local commented:'the result from this match here? The Jews won 9-0.'[30]" under section day 2. This page needs to be heavily revamped or started from scratch, as in its current form it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Another point worth mentioning somewhere in the article is that there is a history of the statistics regarding civilian casualties released in the days after IDF operations to be highly inflated following investigations by international organizations in the months afterwards. Seraphya (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a page in construction, and unlike the main articles is based not on vague reportage by secondary sources, but on the 'empirical data', which like all similar articles, comes from the primary data bases. It offers the reader the skeletal facts or data, from whatever fount supplies them, and, as it develops, will cross-check the data given from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which is one POV, with any similar material provided by official Israeli and other sources dealing in 'empirical data'. By the way, the PCHR does not organize its data better: it provides strikes and casualties by region, and this has been reorganized chronologically. Both have their rationale, but a chronological outline is better suited for wikipedia's encyclopedic ends. There may be a history of papers arguing that Palestinians, the victims, overstate their casualties. There is a history of the IDF and the Israeli government (like any belligerent power) manipulating its press releases and of spokesmen for any of its wars falsifying the record (see any book by Norman Finkelstein). In any case, this is immaterial because the project here is to provide the Palestinian and Israeli data bases, and then follow them up with B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International statistics, the last three being the most reliable of all. And if we are talking of statistics, Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki, Nancy Kanwisher,Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. August 25, 2010) is a good place to start. It pulled to pieces the rhetorical meme or reflex recitative line that 'Palestinians attack- Israel responds/retaliates so popular in the brainless reportage of the mainstream press, though of course some Israeli government backed researchers challenge their conclusion.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Roof knocking
Many incidents reported by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, based in Gaza, take the formula. 'An Israeli drone launched a missile on a house. .a few minutes later an Israeli warplane fired a missile destroying the house'. I think this is self-evidently coded language for Roof knocking. Now I have been tempted over the past days to add a note, after the note re brackets indicating age of the deceased at the bottom of the lead, to suggest to the reader this might indicate a roof knocking warning (which one can't put into the text because sources don't state that). That would be WP:OR. but it makes sense, both in terms of WP:IAR, to add an explanatory line of the type: "Incidents of drone missile strikes on a house, followed soon after by AIF missile strikes, may indicate a roof knocking warning was given." It's a fair editorial comment, I think. On the other hand, probably the page won't be read by many people, and therefore it may not be necessary. Thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could it also be some sort of targeting device for the second main attack ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reformat
I'm rotten on formats, but I've been thinking that this requires a list formal where each entry has 5 headings
 * date
 * person(s)killed
 * status (Civilian/militant)
 * place and details of incident
 * agent (IAF/tank/drone missile

This would probably avoid the repetitive use of terms like 'an IAF missile struck the house of. . ., and in particular since this necrology will run into 700 at a minimum, keep the article length within limits.

1950s
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why the section title on this talk page is 1950? But I agree that the tabular format is probably more appropriate for this type of article, but "Killer" is POV. Also a notes/details column may be desired for those incidents which are more notable or have some detail which is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As a larger note though, won't this list end up essentially being a duplicate of the timeline article which also details all of these strikes? If we are doing that detail here, the timeline needs to remove the indiivdual strike level details and itself become more WP:SUMMARY I would think? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

provisory
I agree that the section should be included, but the warning at the top should probably be removed. If there are elements in the section that are not backed by reliable sources, than those individual elements need to be removed. I am not making any assertions that any particular statement is not backed, just a statement of principle. I think the disclaimer at the top of the section should be removed in light of the standard WP:RS and WP:V policies? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The warning doesn't translate as 'not backed by reliable sources'. It says don't take this data, given by reliable sources as factual until a completely neutral body like B'tselem, or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty or UNWRA, or all four, provide their own careful reviews of the obituary records at Shifa hospital, and elsewhere, and do follow-up interviews. The PCHR data are as 'reliable' in wiki terms as anything given out by the IDF or the Israeli government (I.e., to be taken cum grano salis but nonetheless registered, until the boots-on-the ground archivalists get in and, without having to duck bombs as they write, follow up the paper trail. I've followed three of these wars, and edited the articles as they appeared, and little that was edited in over the period of 'breaking news' got much comfort from long term books, articles and analyses by the competent historical community. But on wikipedia, we don't have hindsight, only the cautiousness of seeing how, in the past, in similar articles, our famous RS are as often as not 'rat shit'. Sometimes they aren't, however, and therefore we just do the best job that immediate information from both sides allows us to do.
 * Every sensical note to the reader of this page that, succinctly, I have added, as a caution against taking it factually, has been removed. This is my sense of care to see that readers are not mislead by the ostensible data that is being built. Having read several hundred articles over the past month on these controversies I have the distinct impression that misrepresentation, spinning, twisting of data is chronic and shared by all sides. That has not worried 99% of editors: it has not deterred most from plunking down dubious 'stuff' everywhere incessantly. I put 'provisory' in after noting discrepancies, which are normal in war reportage. Even Israel's official sources are in utter conflict as to the number of militants among the dead. Not for this do people refrain from editing in the given data at the 2014 Israel-Gaza War. The imemc list wrongly included in the Shuja'iyya list people killed (I know Gaza: I've been there) the dead on the other western side of the city, at Rimal. Most readers and editors won't spot that, so I excorporated those dead from the Shuja'iyya data, which lowered the figures. That too is commonsense, not WP:OR or whatever. This is an extremely fatiguing article to write if one exercises scrupulousness through the data mess, only to find that this attention to not deceive the reader is ignored on petty grounds. If anyone prefers this to be edited differently, I'll gladly yield way: I could have read a dozen books in the time it has taken so far.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thoughtful and thorough response. I think it is obvious we come to this topic from different backgrounds and different points of view, but it is my sincere belief that growth requires having ones ideas and assumptions challenged, both in wikipedia and in real life. I hope we can help each other grow ;). I have certainly seen places where you have done actions I think contrary to your own personal POV in the sake of neutrality or civility, and I think if you look you will see where I have done the same.
 * Your points above are well taken, indeed the between the fog of war, poor reporting, and intentional bias I would expect a great deal of what we hear from all sides will be quite different in the history (not to mention the victors writing the history, and different histories written for different readers). Regarding the disclaimer, I certainly did not read it the way you describe above though - but that may be due to over sensitive wiki-policy-vision. But perhaps a rewording to more directly address the concern could resolve that? To some degree such a warning is inherently true of every current event (and certainly true of every current conflict or heated political issue) and generally we do not put such disclaimers up. However, I do not feel strongly enough about it to push for its removal. I would think perhaps that there would be a statement from one of the major news agencies, or multi-national or human rights groups essentially saying the same thing (take reports with a grain of salt) that we could perhaps use in a more WP:SECONDARY way than just our own editorial warning - I will keep an eye out for one to quote. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate offers to help me grow, but at my age, one ineludibly shrinks. The only thing growing round me are my tomatoes, apples and plums, etc. I'm not fixated about placing warnings on the page. Technically, were I a Palestinian-POV-charioteer, I would be happy to ignore them. I don't look at the rule book, as is known. Commonsense, academic standards of precision, and care for the readership, so that it is aware of the provisory nature of all knowledge governs my work, esp. in this area, since it is deeply infected by politics, and the naive aren't hurt by a cursory note or two to take care to read matter cautiously. Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is not a history of the operation protective cliff
Several edits dealing with rounding up Hamas activists, etc., have nothing to do with the declared content of this article, and should have been made on the sister page. Here we deal with strikes and casualties, and not in narrative fashion, but as briefly as possible. These will have to be expunged or reduced radically, since the page looks like it will have to be split into week by week sub articles already.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed some trivial incidents (damaged houses, agricultural lands), but hesitant to remove a lot due to sensitivity of issue and 1RR mandate. Quis separabit?  20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Palestinian" in title should be changed to "Gaza inhabitants"
Not everybody in Gaza is Palestinian. So I guess there were casualties that are not Palestinian. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from visiting journalists and human rights workers, all residents are Palestinians. About 3,000 of the 1.6 million Palestinians are christian. Interestingly Palestinians are the only refugee group to have ever been given hereditary refugee status. Thus Gaza inhabitant may be a superfluous term. Generally non resident casualties are well documented in media.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right about intergenerational refugee status but that is largely due to the UNRWA's machinations. Quis separabit?  19:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Christians number around 1,500, out of a population of 1,816,379 (CIA estimate). On a minor point, the doctrine that Israel is in galut, or exile, and that as heirs to exile, all Jews have a right to return from their 2,000 year old refugee status, differs only in being doctrinally self-conferred, rather than recently designated. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose terminology and even verbs used to attribute statements are crucial in an article such as this one. It does no good when one side has their comments listed as "stated" while the other has theirs listed as "claimed". The clash of an ancient doctrinal certainty of right for one side versus an international human rights based right for another is perhaps the kernel of the duration of the conflict. Or zinc deficiency on both sides. There is a danger when articles are referenced that an unbalanced flavour of their content gets injected into the WP article. Are there any Jews still living in Gaza?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no Jews living in Gaza; that is ridiculous question. Obviously there is always a danger of POV given the nature of the conflict and the almost worldwide attention being paid to it, not to mention proliferations of biased sources on both sides, kind of like the Troubles. Quis separabit?  19:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

reference number 11 in article -sentence is not reflective of the article referenced
As title says the sentence does not reflect a quote or overall content of the referenced article. Comments ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this link? I can't see where "Thai national" appears in the source–is that what you mean by "not reflective"? It might be better if you were to say exactly what text in the article is not verified by the source. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani's rollback - 20:20, 19 October 2014
@User:Nishidani, please explain this your edit:
 * diff : Neither version was upto date. Don't edit war. Edit to improve

Sorry, but I do not see any base for your "Don't edit war" charge. My edit does follow on @user:Dr. R.R. Pickles erasing the information from ITIC with such symptomatic description as "ITIC is a propaganda source, completely untrustworthy for basic facts", so I've asked him to add his info accurately "This is your opinion only, pls add your data w/out deleting other ones".

Regarding to your "Edit to improve": in fact you've returned the article to Dr. R.R. Pickles's version adding the OCHA data on 03.10.2014 and such for IDF - on 3.09 only (William Booth), for some reason (?) omitting from his article the following important information: as well as haven't returned data from ITIC (sorry again, but it seems that it was the purpose of your rollback :. By the way, they continue with check a list of casualties and have new update issued on 07/10/2014 : As I think this information should be added to the article as it made for main one. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "the Israeli military has determined with "100 percent certainty" that Israeli forces killed 616 combatants and "terrorist operatives."
 * Examination of the names of Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge - Part Six* :
 * 2. The number of names of those killed, examined by the ITIC to date, based on the Palestinian Health Ministry’s lists, is around 900, i.e., about 42% of the number of Palestinians killed (a total of 2,157, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry issued on September 14, 2014). From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception). After these adjustments, the total number of fatalities examined by the ITIC to date is 1,017, i.e., approximately 47% of the total number of fatalities.
 * 3. Weighting the findings of the current examination and the findings of the five previous examinations (detailed in the ITIC’s previous documents) indicates the following distribution of the 1,017 fatalities:
 * A. 435 of those killed were terrorist operatives.
 * B. 439 of those killed were non-involved civilians.
 * C. 143 people who were killed are unidentified at this stage. Therefore, we cannot determine whether they were terrorist operatives or non-involved civilians."


 * WP:OR. The edit I made was very simple. Both of you were tampering with a section that was outdated. The war has ended, new and more comprehensive statistics are now available. It was therefore absolutely pointless adding incomplete statistics for August the 10th, as was your revert which countered Pickles' by introducing (a) incomplete statistics (b) from a non-RS source, the Meir Amit Centre. Neither of you looked up the paragraph to note that it is speaking about August 10, 16 days before the conclusion of hostilities. Only statistics from official sources (UN/IDF) which state the overall casualties calculated from the situation at war's end are acceptable. If you have trouble understanding why the ITIC is, as a private organization with a propaganda agenda, cannot be used, see the discussion here.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Nishidani, pls, try to be correct and do not use such your WP:OR "arguments" as "non-RS source, the Meir Amit Centre" for ITIC. As I've already answered you at the page what you mentioned above:
 * "It's only your and Yossi Melman private opinion and no more. Even Melman wrote about "several members of Malam and Military Intelligence" in his article. It's seems as he doesn't like that "the Arab Bank would stand trial for funding terror attacks in Israel". :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)"
 * I do not know about such Wiki decision for ITIC. What about you?
 * The same regarding to your next "argument" - about the sources of 10.08. It's so interesting, but ... "absolutely pointless adding incomplete statistics" (@Nishidani) was from B'Tselem ("August the 10th"), and not the ITIC's one (September 22) deleted by you. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't waste time.The points you are making are stupid. I edited the page just after August 10 to include the latest statistics for that date. They were reliable for that date. Don't niggle thoughtlessly to score a point. The page statistics needed to be updated. Neither you nor the other editor updated the statistics to represent the casualties at war's end. Both of your edits were dealing with dated information, surpassed by events and RS. We have the IDF and official PNA/Hamas sources for the casualties. When the ITIC gives its complete analysis, including the list of names, their identifications of the status of people in those names, as militants or otherwise, independent sources will evaluate their 'reliability'. Till then its projections are just extrapolations or wishful-thinking. They haven't shared their work on line to scholars or analysts, as yet, and therefore no one can judge their reliability. Their reliability is suspicious because by their own logic, if half of those killed in bombings wered militants, one would expect wounded 11,100 to show a similar proportion. But the breakdown for the 11,100 shows over 50% were women, children and the elderly. The rest were males. In the Meir Amir 'logic' all adults in Gaza would be militants. farcical.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, I haven't receive any answer to my questions, so I do agree with you and will not "waste time" for the next series of wp:OR.
 * Any way, as I know this war was stopped before ITIC's date (September 22). :)
 * ++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il
 * I'll return an ITIC's data to the article about the Casualties later. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of your questions don't make sense, and you don't seem to understand policy. If the ITIC wants to be taken seriously, it should put its identifications on-line and wait for third-party evaluations. Until then, we stick to official figures, not to idiotic private corporations who use the word 'terrorist' of any person enrolled, even as a policeman on point duty or a worker in a charity, in an organisation that is the governing body of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No comments :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

B'tselem's attempt
By 21 July, 132 of the casualties to that date were children B'tselem tried to obtain a radio spot in which the names of those children killed in the conflict were to be read out. The Israeli Broadcasting Authority banned the attempt to air the information on the airwaves. 97% of the children killed in the last five years of the conflict have been Palestinian. The fact is that Israeli children were killed too "in the last five years of the conflict". Does somebody hear about any such requirement to other side of conflict "to air the information" or at least to regret about Israeli casualties, either from B'tselem or other body? Or such requirements apply only to Israel ? :(

So I'd propose to delete this B'tselem's information from the article remaining "97% of the children killed in the last five years" from other source because of the current one has such irrelevant "Israel bans radio ad listing dead children's names" title and isn't updated with information about 4-year-old Daniel killed in the last hours of this conflict. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. One Israeli child, who even has a personal name, is more important than the anonymous masses killed on the other side. According to B'tselem from 19 January 2009 - 07 July 2014, 8 Israeli minors were killed vs 86 Palestinian minors. In the 2008-2009 Gaza war immediately preceding that 318 Palestinian minors were killed, 0 Israeli minors. At the time of the broadcast B'tselem had the names of 150 Gazan children killed, when at that date, no Israeli child had been injured. In the July-August 2014 war, 513 children were killed by the IDF, and one child, Daniel, died as the result of Palestinian rocketry. From late, 2008 therefore 917 Palestinian children were killed by the Israeli military's purity of arms, and 9 Israeli children were killed by Hamas and co. As you can see, when the disparity in the kill rate is 90 Palestinian children for every 1 Israeli child, it is important to sweep the statistics under the carpet, as you propose. After all, it is on a par with the German retaliation ratios in WW2 against civilians in revenge for any dead adult soldier, which ranged from 10 to 100 executions per soldier shot. After all, Daniel is a person, he had a name. No one can recall offhand the names of any one of the 917 Palestinian kids, and therefore they deserve the silence of history.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I did not expect another reply from you. Let's wait for other opinions. Another way is to add information about Israel's response to the victims in Gaza, and vice versa. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is how the general public in Gaza reacted to the news of kidnapping of the 3 teenager. I think it's only fair to show reaction of the public on each side to the news of death or kidnapping of the other side's children. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply as example from today: Hamas Welcomes Baby's Murder in J'lem Attack--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC
The ITIC is a private, though government-assisted organization, whose reputation as a reliable source for anything has yet to be shown. I wouldn't be surprised if children were at times involved in helping the defence of their homes and cities: it happens in every war,(The children in the Warsaw Uprising sang Warsawskie dezieci promising to spill their blood to kill the Nazis. There is a statue to the 'Little Insurgent' commemorating their role; Soviet armies had many child combatants in defending themselves against Nazis; Jewish youths often refused to buckle to the Judenräte and became child soldiers throughout Eastern Europe) but spinning this as 'exploitation' has zero value, given the widespread practice of children taking on dangerous activities on behalf of their families or a resistance. This is not a history of the conflict. Cf. WP:Undue, and in any case this is only a specious and hypocritical propaganda meme, as you would expect from the source. I.e.'The participation of Jewish children and youth in warfare was driven by a combination of necessity, honor, and moral duty.'(David M. Rosen,Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, Rutgers University Press 2005 pp.54-55. Chapter 2 pp.19 has a chapter on it.)Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but such arguments are similar enough to the traditional desire of pro-Arab propagandists - to equate Israel with Nazis, and the people in Gaza, Judea and Samaria - with the Holocaust's victims.
 * If such assumptions were correct, and Israel behaved like the Nazis, then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Palestinian Arabs' problem", because they would not be longer in the borders of former British mandate. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't apologize. Just learn to read correctly. Propagandists of any colour do not read books, or, if they do, they get their facts wrong, and cannot make the most elementary of logical inferences. There is no analogy between 'Jews' and 'Nazis' above, since, as I documented, Jewish youths fought against the Nazis. My text was a reminder to colleagues here, to recall their own history, or study it if they are unfamiliar with the subject. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * W/out sorry: This is from description of your revert: "In all wars, children have fought. They did so in the Warsaw ghetto" --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They did, God bless them. Uri Avnery joined the Irgun when he was 14/15, precisely at the time they dropped all pretensions to restraint and adopted terrorism. No man in his senses would hold that against him, one of the greatest Israelis of our time.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am removing the nonsense ITIC link yet again, as it's propagandistic and holds no objective value. The kyle 3 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See my reply of 23:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And it's been edited accordingly, to reflect the nature of such an organization and the claims that it makes. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the ITIC part again
Considering that it has no objective value, that the ITIC is nothing more then a pro-IDF "think tank" that exists to blame the Palestinians killed or maimed by Israel for their own deaths or maiming, that the ITIC seeks to lyingly make claims about how "conscientious" the IDF is and to parrot Likudnik agitprop and lies--

all of these things factor into the equation and it is ultimately a good idea to not have what that organization claims, as some kind of objective truth on this page. The kyle 3 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian hasbarat propagandists are going to whine every time I remove their precious ITIC reference, then I guess it'll have to stay for now. Edited the sentence to reflect the wholly subjective nature of that group's claims. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's your own POV only. What about RS denied ITIC's data reliability? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not "my own POV only". It's something that's easily identifiable unless your POV is very pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian.
 * At any rate, it's staying, I suppose, but edited to make it clear that it's not in the slightest an objective source, nor are the claims that it makes anything other then highly subjective and unsubstantiated claims. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140714171511/http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/mideast/2014/07/11/gaza-bloodshed-spirals-despite-truce-calls.html to http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/mideast/2014/07/11/gaza-bloodshed-spirals-despite-truce-calls.html
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D10539:on-the-19th-day-of-the-israeli-offensive-on-gaza-before-declaration-of-humanitarian-truce-israeli-forces-escalated-attacks-against-palestinian-civilian20-members-of-one-family-including-11-children-and-5-women-killedisraeli-forces-attack-medical-cre%26catid%3D36:pchrpressreleases%26Itemid%3D194
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.609533&

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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/20140913014525/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf

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) 19:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)