MarciulionisHOF (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
* I have already given my [[Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Suggested_second_paragraph_of_the_lead|suggestion]] of how it should be presented in the lead. [[WP:NPOV]] is not [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance|false balance]]. All the sources given above for the "alternative view" are news sources simply reporting what each side claims. That is their job. A slew of neutral, mainstream, third party [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources state that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6. The precise manner in which they died is not important, so it is left out in my draft. Two sources are cited, but many more can be given. This is a list of sources [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/nathan-thrall/hamass-chances], [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-thrasybulus-syndrome-israel%E2%80%99s-war-gaza-10968?page=show], [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118630/israel-palestine-murders-cause-criss-will-john-kerry-step], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn], [http://972mag.com/how-netanyahu-provoked-this-war-with-gaza/93200/], [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/israel-runs-up-the-score/]. (All are in this [[Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6|section]]). Some of them can be dismissed as biased etc. but not all. These sources have a much higher weight than any "he said/she said" source. Furthermore, as stated in many sources, those were not the only people who died on July 6. There were multiple airstrikes on July 6, in which upto 9 people were killed. Erasing the agent which killed them is not [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]][[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
* I have already given my [[Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Suggested_second_paragraph_of_the_lead|suggestion]] of how it should be presented in the lead. [[WP:NPOV]] is not [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance|false balance]]. All the sources given above for the "alternative view" are news sources simply reporting what each side claims. That is their job. A slew of neutral, mainstream, third party [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources state that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6. The precise manner in which they died is not important, so it is left out in my draft. Two sources are cited, but many more can be given. This is a list of sources [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/nathan-thrall/hamass-chances], [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-thrasybulus-syndrome-israel%E2%80%99s-war-gaza-10968?page=show], [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118630/israel-palestine-murders-cause-criss-will-john-kerry-step], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn], [http://972mag.com/how-netanyahu-provoked-this-war-with-gaza/93200/], [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/israel-runs-up-the-score/]. (All are in this [[Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6|section]]). Some of them can be dismissed as biased etc. but not all. These sources have a much higher weight than any "he said/she said" source. Furthermore, as stated in many sources, those were not the only people who died on July 6. There were multiple airstrikes on July 6, in which upto 9 people were killed. Erasing the agent which killed them is not [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]][[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:*The suggestion consists of omitting the cause of death of the militants, but to say that Israel is responsible. [[User_talk:WarKosign|“]][[User:WarKosign|WarKosign]][[Special:Contributions/WarKosign|”]] 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
:*The suggestion consists of omitting the cause of death of the militants, but to say that Israel is responsible. [[User_talk:WarKosign|“]][[User:WarKosign|WarKosign]][[Special:Contributions/WarKosign|”]] 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
* '''Remove from [[WP:LEAD|lead]] (keep in a detailed step by step fighting development section)''' (first option) - this tunnel incident is a complete non-notable as a so-called trigger for the fighting. It is a small unavoidable step, not a flaming match. No one should care about it in the wider perspective. e.g. this source doesn't care: ''Since the start on the night of 7 July 2014...''[http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D911D10D376598C185257D12004D3F7B]. On the same level, IDF's spokesman Peter Lerner re-tweeted a BBC report[http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-28198622] about "#Pallywood"[https://twitter.com/LTCPeterLerner/status/486233012397293568] |
|||
** '''Keep mention to minimum''' -- While I consider this incident a non-notable for the [[WP:LEAD]], if consensus prefers they'd be mentioned, I'd promote giving as little detail/varying views as possible in the lead. Thus, just mention ''Hamas viewed Israel as responsible for killing of 6 militants/civilians on July 7th, promised consequences and increased rocket attacks, launching 120[http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/articleprint.aspx?id=20665] projectiles into Israel. Israel, thus, blah blah...'' (rockets have bigger impact as a lit match than a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel) |
|||
** (third option) '''Mention everything''' - both views on tunnel incident and Pallywood report (above) - Israeli military spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner: "militants went into the tunnel to assess the damage from the air strike and meddled with some explosives",[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28192747] [https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/486176047596322816 Here] it is again from an ABC News Correspondent (retweeted by Lerner). |
|||
** Querry: what's the copyright status on the image of these 6 guys on [http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/articleprint.aspx?id=20665 this site]? |
|||
Whoosh, [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF|talk]]) 07:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
Revision as of 07:08, 8 October 2014
Toolbox |
---|
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:
There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Lead and background
The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.
- I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.
- @Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.
[1],[2] @Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Beyond numbers of casualties given by Hamas health ministry, the numbers claimed by Palestinian presidentMahmud Abbas must be included.--Tritomex (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
[3],[4]--Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6
Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.
- The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
- Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
- Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
- New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
- The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
- Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."
I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.
J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"
Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- @GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)- @GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Wounded Israeli civilians
The article says "According to Magen David Adom, 837 civilians were injured — 10 seriously, 26 moderately or lightly; 18 were hurt in traffic accidents when rocket-warning sirens sounded, 159 injured while running for bomb shelters, and 581 were treated for shock." 10 serious injuries plus 26 moderate or light injuries is 36 injuries. How badly were the other 801 (837 minus 36) civilians wounded, if not "seriously", "moderately", or "lightly"? Are the "10" and "26" figures perhaps very out-of-date? -sche (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is probably the source for these numbers. One guess - perhaps those wounded less than lightly received some treatment and were released from the hospital, thus not being counted as injured anymore.
- This source (google translate is useless because of a nasty popup) speaks about total of 2,271 wounded. It says that between 7th and 20th of July 438 people were treated in hospitals. It then classifies people by severity of injury and hospital, in total 69 serious, 121 moderate, 1439 light, 204 shock (which sums up to 1833). 1833+438 sums up to the mentioned 2271. I still don't know what to make of it, why are the first 438 people separate. WarKosign (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The source above mixes up soldiers and civilians. Here (translation) is a source that quotes MDA. They treated 842 civilians: 5 dead and 37 injured by rockets shards (1 critical, 10 serious, 6 moderate and 20 light). In addition, 33 injured by shards of glass and debris from rocket explosions, 18 of car accidents during alarms (including 1 seriously), 159 from falling or otherwise hurt while running for shelter and 581 treated for shock. Total of 5 dead + 37 by rockets + 33 by damage to buildings + 18 by car accidents + 159 by running + 581 by shock = 833. 9 more were injured in terror attacks (supposedly in reaction to the fighting): 1 stabbed in Maale Adumin, 7 injured in a tractor incident in Jerusalem (one died later from his wounds) and one person wounded by gunfire on the Scopus mountain. WarKosign (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest removing the classification by severity since we don't have it for all the injured, and instead classify them only by the source of injury - rocket or rocket debris, building debris caused by the rocket, traffic accidents, falling, terror attacks, shock. Classification by severity also changes over time, so different reports may be contradictory depending on the time they were made. WarKosign (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- And here is the primary source with the same info (plus numbers of injured during regular, unrelated car accidents during the same period). WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for locating those sources! The suggestion of organizing injuries by cause rather than severity seems reasonable to me (especially because the severity data is so incomplete) and I have enacted it. -sche (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @-sche: You wrote "and 9 in violence in the West Bank", which is not correct - Maale Adumim (1 stabbed) is in the West Bank, but Mount Scopus and the tractor incident (Shmuel HaNavi Street) are in Jerusalem. I'd go with "and 9 in violence in Jerusalem area" or "in Jerusalem and Maale Adumim".
- Another issue in the text you touched is "fell apart or expired". Ceasefires don't just fall apart, they are violated by one side or the other. Are there any claims about IDF violating any of the ceasefires during this conflict ? There are claims that Hamas violated many ceasefires, would saying that all the violations are claimed to be from Hamas side be factually correct or POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here and here are Israeli claims of Hamas violating ceasefires. And here and here Hamas claims the opposite. How about "... ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other" ? Is it any better than the vague "fell apart" ? WarKosign (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- "fell apart" is a shorter version of "ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other". Obviously ceasefires fall apart because something happens. I see no issues with that, if we are not assigning responsibility. For instance, see the timeline section for the August 1 ceasefire for different versions of who violated the ceasefire. Kingsindian (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps just "were violated or expired" to be as short and a bit more exact ? WarKosign (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Were violated" begs the question of "by who?", and is IMO likely to prompt well-meaning (and possibly also less-well-meaning, more tendentious) people to repeatedly add "by Israel" or "by Hamas". That would then have to be qualified in a way like Kingsindian suggests ("by Israel according to Hamas or by Hamas according to Israel" / "with each side blaming the other") in order to be neutral, at which point we'd be devoting too much space to expressing the simple fact that the fighting didn't actually stop until the date that we report it stopped on, 26 August. The reasons I think a mention of previous ceasefires belongs in the lead at all are that Israel withdrew its ground forces after one of them, and they provide an introduction for the final, successful ceasefire. But the circumstances under which they fell apart are specific to each ceasefire, and contentious (and a magnet for POV edits), and hence best left in the article body, IMO. -sche (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps just "were violated or expired" to be as short and a bit more exact ? WarKosign (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- "fell apart" is a shorter version of "ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other". Obviously ceasefires fall apart because something happens. I see no issues with that, if we are not assigning responsibility. For instance, see the timeline section for the August 1 ceasefire for different versions of who violated the ceasefire. Kingsindian (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for locating those sources! The suggestion of organizing injuries by cause rather than severity seems reasonable to me (especially because the severity data is so incomplete) and I have enacted it. -sche (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala: You wrote in two of your edit summaries that MDA is a partisan source and therefore its numbers should be removed from the infobox. Do you have a reliable source that claims that MDA is partisan, or is it just your personal feeling that this number is too high ? Who else but MDA knows how many people MDA treated ? You also wrote that using MDA's numbers is like using Hamas's number - which is exactly what we do, in the other column in the infobox there are numbers from "Hamas-controlled Gazan ministry of health", and most of the sources also use GHM's numbers as a basis. If you have a reliable source (that is, one that is not completely WP:FRINGE) that makes different claims regarding the numbers of wounded Israeli civilians we should include them as well.WarKosign (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the question whether or not to include the the claims Hamas made regarding number of killed and wounded IDF soliders is still being decided, but it seems to me the consensus is against including it as being obviously baseless. WarKosign (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign:Yes, but there is one difference: it is mentioned the statistics are from Hamas. Your source does not. There, it follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. No, you're right. No reliable sources mentions that MDA is biased. However, then we need to follow WP:UCS (and WP:WIARM in general, it clearly says that common judgement plays a factor in editing articles). And, as far as I'm concerned, using an Israeli newspaper article which has statistics (unsubstantiated statistics at that; it does not cite MDA) without attributing its name, is a clear violation of WP:BIASED. Why is it for Gaza casualties, there is a higher standard for sources, but for Israeli casualty statistics, there is little standard? A mere newspaper article is apparently enough to prove that that 800+ civilians were injured. What were MDA's methods? How do we know they were reliable? How do we know they weren't completely fabricated? Casualty statistics require a higher degree of evidence. You can keep it, but at the very least, attribute it to the source rather than touting it as a statement of fact. Further, there should be a note attached to that statement described MDA's methods. 800+ casualties? Where did that number come from? Do you have direct evidence from MDA rather than a newspaper article? Also, how is MDA a reliable source? I don't have to prove that MDA is an unreliable source. No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's reliable. It is an Israeli source, and, again, we must exercise a certain degree of caution when using sources from a nation which is participating in the war. What did it define as an 'injury'? If, say, the relative of an Israeli soldier was diagnosed with depression as a result of losing a loved one, does that count as an injury? Then the definition of 'civilian injury' become absurdly broad. What does 'shock' mean? With that logic, every single person in Gaza was injured, because they all, I imagine they were all 'shocked' and scared that they might be killed. JDiala (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- We must be a bit careful about injuries because unlike "dead" it is not binary. I agree that the methodology can be very different, so it is not easy to compare. JDiala mentions the "shock" category, but it can be extended. I do not really know what the way to fix this is, therefore I didn't comment before. Perhaps attribution is the way to go. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign:Yes, but there is one difference: it is mentioned the statistics are from Hamas. Your source does not. There, it follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. No, you're right. No reliable sources mentions that MDA is biased. However, then we need to follow WP:UCS (and WP:WIARM in general, it clearly says that common judgement plays a factor in editing articles). And, as far as I'm concerned, using an Israeli newspaper article which has statistics (unsubstantiated statistics at that; it does not cite MDA) without attributing its name, is a clear violation of WP:BIASED. Why is it for Gaza casualties, there is a higher standard for sources, but for Israeli casualty statistics, there is little standard? A mere newspaper article is apparently enough to prove that that 800+ civilians were injured. What were MDA's methods? How do we know they were reliable? How do we know they weren't completely fabricated? Casualty statistics require a higher degree of evidence. You can keep it, but at the very least, attribute it to the source rather than touting it as a statement of fact. Further, there should be a note attached to that statement described MDA's methods. 800+ casualties? Where did that number come from? Do you have direct evidence from MDA rather than a newspaper article? Also, how is MDA a reliable source? I don't have to prove that MDA is an unreliable source. No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's reliable. It is an Israeli source, and, again, we must exercise a certain degree of caution when using sources from a nation which is participating in the war. What did it define as an 'injury'? If, say, the relative of an Israeli soldier was diagnosed with depression as a result of losing a loved one, does that count as an injury? Then the definition of 'civilian injury' become absurdly broad. What does 'shock' mean? With that logic, every single person in Gaza was injured, because they all, I imagine they were all 'shocked' and scared that they might be killed. JDiala (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR. NOTE: In Gaza, there is a problem.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: This is what is currently in the article's casualties section: "According to Magen David Adom, 837 civilians were treated for shock (581) or injuries (256): 37 were injured by rockets, 33 by debris from rocket explosions, 18 in traffic accidents which occurred when warning sirens sounded, 159 while running for or in bomb shelters, and 9 in violence in Jerusalem and Maale Adumim", with reference pointing directly to MDA report. Infobox should also be referencing MDA itself. The Gazan side of the infobox specifies the source of each number because they are so different. If they were relatively close, I would prefer to see just two numbers or ranges: dead and wounded, without specifying the sources, and only go into details in the appropriate section in the article body. WarKosign (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding your question "What is a shock victim" - Panic attack is more than being slightly afraid, they have symptoms that may appear similar to a heart attack or a stroke and usually need urgent medical attention. If you would count every scared person then you'd have to include most of Israel's population. I am not a medical professional, and even if you are one, deciding what constitutes an injury and what doesn't would be OR. We need sources that provide this information - hence the MDA report. WarKosign (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Yes, in the casualties section. Not the infobox, which was what I was editing. In the infobox, MDA is not attributed; it just says "469 soldiers and 837 civilians wounded". Ideally, you ought to also get the actual document from MDA rather than cite a newspaper article. Yes, absolutely we need sources. However, we need to know that this source is reliable. We also need to know how this source defines 'injured', and whether or not its definitions conform with the rest of the medical/legal definitions of what does or does not constitute an 'injury'. This is further exacerbated by the political nature of the conflict, and how MDA would have an incentive to define 'injury' broader than it actually is. I have no issue with MDA itself. You're free to include it. However, like every other organization, like the UN, the Gaza Health Ministry, the PCHR, and the ITIC, its name needs to be attributed alongside with its claim, because there is currently no consensus among reliable sources regarding the precise number of casualties. JDiala (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: Let's see what can be done to improve the situation, point by point:
- Jerusalem Post being quoted instead of MDA - I see no problem whatsoever with adding/switching citation.
- Wounded vs shock - I think the confusion came from translation. In Hebrew the numbers are usually reported as X נפגעים ("hurt"), out of them X dead, X severely injured, X moderately injured, X lightly injured and X נפגעי חרדה ("Hurt" by panic/shock). As I just checked with google translate, נגפעים is often translated as casualties or wounded, which may have led to the confusion. To avoid the confusion we can write "256 injured, 581 suffered shock"
- Specifying source - we could write something like "IDF: 66 soldiers dead and 469 wounded, MDA: 6 civilians dead, 256 injured, 581 suffered shock". It would look as if IDF and MDA are providing contradicting numbers, as is the case on the Gaza side of the casualties section, with different bodies providing wildly different estimations. Since there is just one set of numbers I prefer to omit the source. Perhaps we can use the citation so it shows clearly where the data is coming from - citing MDA directly is obvious (clicking on the citation link will show a box saying "MDA"), and for IDF we can also either cite it directly if available, or find a source that says in the headline "according to IDF ..."WarKosign (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Point by point response
- Maybe you don't have a problem, but WP:Reliable does. See in particular WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact...Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." What you cited falls into "analysis" rather than news reporting. That is the issue with it. It is only reliable if it's directly from MDA. JPosts unreliability (with regard to this in particular) is exacerbated by its right-wing Israeli bias.
- You have not responded to my statement. You are citing an Israeli organization. I will repeat what I previously said: Yes, absolutely we need sources for Israeli casualties. However, we need to know that this source[MDA] is reliable. We also need to know how this source defines 'injured', and whether or not its definitions conform with the rest of the medical/legal definitions of what does or does not constitute an 'injury'.
- None of the casualty sources other than, of course, the Israeli sources, are wildly contradicting. All respectable international organizations acknowledge that around 2000 Gazans died and 14-1600 of them were civilians. Only Israel, and some institutions within Israel, deny this. This is why caution needs to be taken when citing Israeli sources; its "analysis" of these issues tends to be contrarian and partisan. Since we don't know for fact that the precise number of Israeli casualties, we need to attribute any statements regarding that to organizations making those claims.
- In sum, there are two things you need to do: per WP:NEWSORG, as I mentioned, acknowledge that JPost is not a reliable source for casualty analysis, and thus MDA needs to be cited directly. And secondly, if you want to maintain the 800+ Israeli injuries statistics, attribute the claim to MDA and, ideally, have some sort of disclaimer concerning that most of the "injuries" are "shock", however MDA may define that. If you cannot do this, then I have grounds to remove it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL JDiala (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: First point - I already agreed with you that there is no problem switching to MDA as the source. I will do it now. JPost quotes MDA directly and in fact provides exactly the same numbers, but sure, let's switch if this is what makes you happier.
- MDA is "officially recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as the national aid society of the state of Israel under the Geneva Conventions, and a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies". Do you have any more reliable source for the matter of injuries and casualties in Israel ? Is there any source, reliable or not, that disputes MDA's numbers ? You insistence on calling MDA partisan does not count.
- Nobody claimed that people suffering from shock were physically wounded. The way it was written is misleading, and I gave my theory on the source of the confusion. To make the comparison with the Palestinian wounded more obvious I suggested to split the number in the infobox into physically wounded and suffering from shock. If there is a number of Palestinians suffering shock, it should be included as well. WarKosign (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign:No, I don't think you understood my point. Firstly, in my view, this is a WP:WIARM and WP:EXCEPTIONAL issue. Asserting that anxiety attacks (according to the source, that was what 500+ of the 842) amount to casualties in an armed conflict is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. In a war, the casualties generally refer to people who are physically injured or killed during the course of hostilities. This is WP:COMMON, unless you have a large number of sources (scholarly consensus) to back up your claim that anxiety attacks constitute "casualties". That, to me, sounds silly, and it's quite an extraordinary claim. Definitively calculating the number of civilian 'casualties' based on a single source (note, these were just the casualties MDA treated; that's a problem) is also a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And regarding the information presented as a statement of fact rather than attributing POV of a sources that an institution from a participating nation is absurd per WP:COMMON. Regarding the ICRC's recognition of MDA, it is not being denied that MDA is the national aid organization for Israel. The issue here is in text attribution and whether or not relying on a single, Israeli source to determine the number of Israeli casualties definitively, particularly when its definition of a 'casualty' is peculiar, is acceptable. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: People suffering from shock/panic/anxiety were removed from the infobox, leaving 256 physically harmed, driving this part of this argument moot (for the record, I agree that shocked people should not be counted as equivalent to physically injured, the question was only whether/how to mention them in the infobox). I would not at all object to adding more sources for the number of the injured, are there any ? Jpost,ynet and other Israeli newspapers quoted MDA, so I don't see much value in adding more of the same. I could not find a number from an international source. For a claim to be considered POV there should be another, conflicting claim - is there any ? WarKosign (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: No, that's still not good enough. Read the MDA source. Another "159 people were injured as a result of falling and trauma on the way to the shelters"; 18 who were injured in road traffic accidents which occurred when the sirens were heard. Is this a joke? They received a band-aid from tripping while going to the shelter, and that somehow constitutes a civilian casualty? No. Casualties, in the context of a war, almost always refer to physical injuries or deaths which occur during the course of combat, either from the enemy or friendly fire. This is simply a WP:COMMON issue. It is common sense. You don't need sources for this; you're the one making WP:EXCEPTIONAL, outlandish claims that falling while running to a shelter is a "casualty". JDiala (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: As a result of rocket fire from Gaza, people in Israel were injured physically. We do not know the exact degree of injury in each case, except it was serious enough to involve an ambulance or a trip to the hospital. There must be many cases of less severe injuries ("band-aid") that were not reported. Do you have evidence that out of 11,000 reported injuries in Gaza 10,000 are NOT band-aid ? MDA provided details on the sources of injuries, unlike a single and completely opaque number provided by Hamas's health ministry, and you are trying to use this transparency to discredit it. For instance, we know that Hamas shot and broke limbs of tens or hundreds of Fatah members, and that tens or hundeds of Hamas rockets fell on Gaza injuring people - why do you not demand to reduce the number of injured in Gaza ? WarKosign (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: No, that's still not good enough. Read the MDA source. Another "159 people were injured as a result of falling and trauma on the way to the shelters"; 18 who were injured in road traffic accidents which occurred when the sirens were heard. Is this a joke? They received a band-aid from tripping while going to the shelter, and that somehow constitutes a civilian casualty? No. Casualties, in the context of a war, almost always refer to physical injuries or deaths which occur during the course of combat, either from the enemy or friendly fire. This is simply a WP:COMMON issue. It is common sense. You don't need sources for this; you're the one making WP:EXCEPTIONAL, outlandish claims that falling while running to a shelter is a "casualty". JDiala (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: People suffering from shock/panic/anxiety were removed from the infobox, leaving 256 physically harmed, driving this part of this argument moot (for the record, I agree that shocked people should not be counted as equivalent to physically injured, the question was only whether/how to mention them in the infobox). I would not at all object to adding more sources for the number of the injured, are there any ? Jpost,ynet and other Israeli newspapers quoted MDA, so I don't see much value in adding more of the same. I could not find a number from an international source. For a claim to be considered POV there should be another, conflicting claim - is there any ? WarKosign (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign:No, I don't think you understood my point. Firstly, in my view, this is a WP:WIARM and WP:EXCEPTIONAL issue. Asserting that anxiety attacks (according to the source, that was what 500+ of the 842) amount to casualties in an armed conflict is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. In a war, the casualties generally refer to people who are physically injured or killed during the course of hostilities. This is WP:COMMON, unless you have a large number of sources (scholarly consensus) to back up your claim that anxiety attacks constitute "casualties". That, to me, sounds silly, and it's quite an extraordinary claim. Definitively calculating the number of civilian 'casualties' based on a single source (note, these were just the casualties MDA treated; that's a problem) is also a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And regarding the information presented as a statement of fact rather than attributing POV of a sources that an institution from a participating nation is absurd per WP:COMMON. Regarding the ICRC's recognition of MDA, it is not being denied that MDA is the national aid organization for Israel. The issue here is in text attribution and whether or not relying on a single, Israeli source to determine the number of Israeli casualties definitively, particularly when its definition of a 'casualty' is peculiar, is acceptable. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: Let's see what can be done to improve the situation, point by point:
- @WarKosign: Yes, in the casualties section. Not the infobox, which was what I was editing. In the infobox, MDA is not attributed; it just says "469 soldiers and 837 civilians wounded". Ideally, you ought to also get the actual document from MDA rather than cite a newspaper article. Yes, absolutely we need sources. However, we need to know that this source is reliable. We also need to know how this source defines 'injured', and whether or not its definitions conform with the rest of the medical/legal definitions of what does or does not constitute an 'injury'. This is further exacerbated by the political nature of the conflict, and how MDA would have an incentive to define 'injury' broader than it actually is. I have no issue with MDA itself. You're free to include it. However, like every other organization, like the UN, the Gaza Health Ministry, the PCHR, and the ITIC, its name needs to be attributed alongside with its claim, because there is currently no consensus among reliable sources regarding the precise number of casualties. JDiala (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Yeah, no. This is becoming absurd now. If a modern military aerially bombards densely populated civilian neighborhoods with sophisticated attack jets for several weeks, it's reasonable to assume that most of the injuries resulting from that are more than 'band-aid'. That is more or less a common sense judgement. You can't say the same thing about "falling on the way to shelters". That is simply not a casualty. Receiving first aid for cuts and scrapes because of one's own clumsiness while going to the shelters isn't a casualty. That's nonsense. Regarding the Hamas rockets injuring Gazans, those are legitimate casualties, since in a war, injuries from friendly fire also count. If you look at the Operation Cast Lead, the friendly fire deaths are included for IDF soldiers. JDiala (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: I'm getting tired of your insistence to treat the wounded differently. Your common sense seems very biased - you seem to think that all the injuries in Israel are 'band-aid' while in Gaza "most of the injuries" are serious. Lacking better data, I have to assume that the distribution of severity of injuries is similar, even though in Gaza residents received prior warnings by leaflets, phone calls, text messages, "roof knocking" and Israeli residents sometimes had less than 15 seconds to reach shelter. WarKosign (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Yeah, no. This is becoming absurd now. If a modern military aerially bombards densely populated civilian neighborhoods with sophisticated attack jets for several weeks, it's reasonable to assume that most of the injuries resulting from that are more than 'band-aid'. That is more or less a common sense judgement. You can't say the same thing about "falling on the way to shelters". That is simply not a casualty. Receiving first aid for cuts and scrapes because of one's own clumsiness while going to the shelters isn't a casualty. That's nonsense. Regarding the Hamas rockets injuring Gazans, those are legitimate casualties, since in a war, injuries from friendly fire also count. If you look at the Operation Cast Lead, the friendly fire deaths are included for IDF soldiers. JDiala (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I will be clear on this issue. The casualties section in the infobox is reserved for those suffering physical harm ONLY. Not everybody who got an anxiety attack due to a bomb falling near them. The section is even called casualties and the definition of civilian casualties (which is the case here) on Wikipedia that it is a military term describing civilians killed, injured, or imprisoned by military action. Any information about mental trauma, short-term or otherwise, can be talked about in the main body of the article within a dedicated paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
5 dead and 37 injured by rockets shards (1 critical, 10 serious, 6 moderate and 20 light). In addition, 33 injured by shards of glass and debris from rocket explosions, 18 of car accidents during alarms (including 1 seriously), 159 from falling or otherwise hurt while running for shelter
- I won't push this, but mrely note for the record.by military action means 'wounded as a consequence of military action'. Spraining one's ankle, for example, while running to a shelter when a siren warns of a possible strike in your area is not strictly classifiable as a 'war wound', which Israeli statistics was suffered by 70 (33+37), not 246 (from memory). My father coolly help dismantle a huge German bomb in Tripoli during the war, and then shat himself an hour later while sitting down to tell his fellow soldiers of the incident. I don't think he blamed the Germans for some loose bowel syndrome, though there is a connection.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala and WarKosign: When a discussion goes on this long, it is fair to assume that it is not really about content. You are not forced to argue forever. Clearly you cannot agree. Open an RfC or pursue other avenues here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the Israeli position on Hamas rocket fire undue?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article currently states that Hamas only started firing rockets in response to an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis that killed several Hamas members on July 6 or July 7. Should the lead and "Background" sections include statements by Israeli officials and news reports claiming that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30, while the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels? Note that one of the sources cited in the lead--The Christian Science Monitor--actually supports the Israeli version. Seemingly conflicting statements from IDF spokesmen Lerner on July 7, and the perception that this material is POV, have been cited as reasons to exclude this material.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Additional source on July 7: "Addressing the deaths of seven Hamas members in a tunnel in south Gaza, the source said they died as a result of explosives they planted in an underground assault tunnel aimed at an IDF target. "This was designed to enable a significant terror attack," the source said. "In recent days, we have operated in this area, and we will continue to act against the threat of tunnels in the coming days," he added. The seven Hamas members did not die as a result of an Israeli air strike, the source explained. The tunnel was found by the army a few days ago. "Last night, for reasons that are unclear, Hamas decided to handle the explosives. They handled bombs that were in the tunnel, and were ready to go off against military targets. The explosives went off, leading to seven casualties," said the source." The article should at least include the Israeli claim that the tunnel was being used for an imminent terror attack, as well as the Israeli position that "Even when the rocket is fired by some rogue group at Sderot or Israel's southern communities, we view Hamas as responsible, because Hamas is in charge of the territory...Either Hamas puts an end to rocket fire, or we put an end to it."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Include Israeli position. Mainstream sources. Notable. Reliable as well. Not like a comic book. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It turns out that part of this story was actually invented by Wikipedia editors.
- Here is what the body of this article says: "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid on the house of a Hamas operative in Khan Yunis killed seven people.[99][153][154] The following day, Hamas referred to the incident as a "massacre against women and children [and] a horrendous war crime" and claimed "all Israelis have now become legitimate targets"; it then assumed formal responsibility for launching rocket attacks on Israel."
- Even if the Israeli airstrike on the tunnel was launched on July 6 (or July 7, as many sources say it was on a Monday), this Wikipedia narrative is the product of careless and sloppy editing, because seven people were killed in a strike on a Hamas member's house in Khan Yunis. However, this bombing occurred on July 8, after Hamas took formal responsibility for and massively increased rocket fire against Israel. The source cited in the article, which is dated July 9, is being misrepresented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- So someone messed up the Wikipedia article. Nice catch. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Looks correct. It looks like during copyediting the passage, the two events have been mixed up. I remember earlier that they used to separate. See this diff. Pinging -sche to let him know. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh; my bad. In the diff Kingsindian provides, it looks like I indeed made the mistake of assuming that "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli strike killed seven Hamas militants" and "an Israeli air raid on Khan Yunis on 6 July [...] killed seven people" were referring to the same event. Sigh. As I recall, there has long been confusion (in this article) about the Khan Yunis event(s), with Hamas' reference to the "Khan Yunis massacre" even being wikilinked to the 1956 [[Khan Yunis massacre]](!) by more than one editor. -sche (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I think the way the RfC is defined is problematic. What should be the reply of someone who think that Israeli statements are not undue, but POV ? Or perhaps someone thinks the sources are unreliable ? Or any other reason for whatever opinion they have ? I think the question should give simple statements (backed up by sources) that are not currently in the lead and ask whether they should be represented in the lead. Let each replying editor say which policy or other reason makes them think whatever they think. WarKosign (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not merely about the lead, but whether the statements summarized above should be included in any capacity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drop-in comment from InterWiki WikiProjects left over from unresolved Dispute Resolution; Based on the translations of the InterWiki pages for the article at both the Hebrew version (Israel) and the Arabic version (Persian), neither one of these versions of the Lede is particularly concerned with the issue of events in the immediate 7 days leading to the start of the Operation. Both of the versions cover some mention of the thirty (30) days leading up the operation and the general increasing tensions over those thirty days in their entirety as leading to the Operation starting in July. The Hebrew version states this fact succinctly before continuing with the Lede, while the Arabic version provides two or three added sentences enumerating some examples of the escalating tensions occurring during the 30-day period leading up to the start of the Operation in July. Neither version singles out the seven days just before the Operation itself as being given highlighted attention in the Lede. FelixRosch (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @FelixRosch: Is there some place I can see the translation? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Preliminary draft trans of Arabic version (only for prelim comparison, requires redo if used for editing): "...Operation Protective Edge followed the abduction and murder of three teenagers in Israel on June12. Israeli Defense Forces asserted that Hamas was considered responsible for the kidnapping. They further claimed that the two men suspected of carrying out the kidnapping were also members of Hamas (2 cites given). Israel Defense Forces have offered no direct evidence of this and Hamas has denied any involvement in the kidnapping (1 cite given). In the wake of the three kidnappings, the killing of 10 Palestinians under 18 years of age had been reported (1 cite), along with hundreds of arrests in the West Bank (2 cites). During the search for three missing Israelis, others were also re-arrested. Between 350 and 600 Palestinians were arrested (4 cites) which included mostly Hamas members in West Jordan (3 cites). On the night of July 6, six further militants were killed (1 cite). On 7 July in resonse to the firing of Hamas rockets from Gaza, Israel fired 100 missile rockets into the area, along with several Air Force bombing aids in Gaza (1 cite)...". [Arabic prelim translation posted on request above from InterWiki WikiProjects.] FelixRosch (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @FelixRosch: Is there some place I can see the translation? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Include Israeli position. Policy based argument per WP:NPOV. For the same reason it has to go to same places where the opposite opinion is already mentioned (lead). --Tritomex (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drop-in comment from InterWiki WikiProjects; As stated above the Hebrew version (Israel) and Arabic version (Persian) both did not dwell on the 7 days period just prior to the start of the Operation, but only on the 30-days period of escalating tensions. The Hebrew version included less than half of the material on this than the Arabic version. The Arabic translation above was marked as Preliminary 3 times, it is not for use for editing, only as a requested prelim translation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Include both versions of the event, per NPOV, since both POVs have RS now. I still think the RfC in its current form is pointless - it can't be undue to represent both POVs if there are proper sources. WarKosign (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The header is talking about rocket fire from June 30, while a new paragraph is talking about bombing raid on tunnels on July 6. I have no idea what this RfC aims to achieve, but it is useless in the current form, as has been mentioned already not just by me. There is no concrete proposal or issue on which there can be a discussion. But people are free to waste their time on it if they wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: "The header is talking about rocket fire from June 30, while a new paragraph is talking about bombing raid on tunnels on July 6." That is a blatantly untrue statement, suggesting you did not bother to read the header before commenting. There are two components to the Israeli claim, my question is whether the material is undue. WarKosign says "it can't be undue to represent both POVs if there are proper sources", and you agree with his sentiment that further discussion here is "pointless", so should we move ahead to adding this material to the article or discussing what language should be used?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TheTimesAreAChanging: The section heading is: "RfC: Is the Israeli position on Hamas rocket fire undue?" Everybody commenting had already commented on the talk page before, in the section just above "Problems with the introduction". As I told you from the very beginning, this RfC is useless. You ignored me, and even collapsed by comment improperly. Ask any uninvolved admin whether this RfC is worth a damn: I will eat my hat if they say yes. So: no we draw no conclusion at all from this. I suggest dumping this totally useless RfC and starting a new one, with a clear, brief, neutral proposal of exactly what you want. If you have comments or elaboration, add them below, like others have done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit about blockade
This edit is not "clarifying", it is selectively quoting one particular clause of one particular report. See the last paragraph of the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip. The naval blockade is only one part of the blockade, and only one report declared that legal. It is totally undue to put one data point in the article like this. This issue of the blockade has been discussed many times on the talk page before. This statement should be removed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Naval/air blockade is indeed a blockade. There is no blockade on land, there are borders with Israel and Egypt and both manage their own borders however they see fit. Doesn't your country control its borders ? Do you consider it a blockade of the neighbors ?
- Israel obviously considers the blockade legal (or at least necessary). One important report by the UN declared that it is legal. Many ("overwhelming majority") NGOs disputed this opinion. Why represent only one point of view and not both ? WarKosign (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- That Israeli considers the blockade necessary is already mentioned: there is no suppression of one point of view. This particular tidbit is simply taking one data point out of the whole saga of the legality of the blockade. It is not just NGOs which disputed this opinion, it is a five member UN panel of international law experets who did this. And there is the Goldstone report separately and the Red Cross and so on. Read the last paragraph of the other article I quoted. Adding this tidbit by itself is simply false balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: @WarKosign: I concur with KingsIndian. The Palmer report is a WP:DUE issue. There is almost unanimous international consensus regarding the illegality of the blockade. Moreover, the statement "[a] United Nations commission ruled that the blockade was "both legal and appropriate" misrepresents the report. It only refers to the naval blockade; not the blockade as a whole, and the report itself repeatedly emphasizes the humanitarian issue in Gaza. The section on the blockade now sounds as though there's some sort of international debate as to whether or not the blockade is legal and/or appropriate, when in reality, there simply is not. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the report indeed only meant the naval part of the blockade. Is there any objection to writing 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".' ? Another option is to keep the question of legality of the blockade out of this article and leave the discussion where it belongs, that is in the article dealing with it. WarKosign (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: This is not 'for the sake of argument'. The report itself is available online [6]. And yes, you can do that for now(In fact,that's what I'll do), but there's still the WP:DUE issue. Regarding mentioning the legality of the blockade, that needs to stay. That's one of the reasons we have the 'background' section: so readers can understand the broader context of the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the blockade itself is highly relevant. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @JDiala: Existence of the blockade is highly relevant, legality of it is less so. If the whole international community was supporting the blockade, would it make Hamas any less inclined to look for ways to break it and smuggle rockets or materials to build rockets?
- The report says that the naval blockade was legal. It also says that it considered it separately from the land crossing policies that were in place before the naval blockade. It does not specifically say that there is any other kind of blockade that is illegal. "For the sake of argument" meant - let's not argue (now) if the report saying that the naval blockade is legal should or should not be understood as saying that land and air movement restrictions are legal or illegal. WarKosign (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Fine, I can agree with that. You can remove all references to its legality. Though that would also mean removing Israel's legal argument ("Israel maintains that the blockade is legal") JDiala (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? No, the legality of the blockade should not be removed. This is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. What is the rationale for removing it? The UN specifically quoted the legality of the blockade here and the EU has made statements about it too, among many others. The discussion here is not whether the legality should be included or not. If you wish to open a discussion on that, use a separate section, so that people are not confused. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I also prefer to have a few sentences discussing legality of the blockade, including one - such as the one I wrote above - for Palmer report. WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to discuss the legality in more detail, I suggest copying the entire last paragraph of the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: I'm not opposed to removing it, WarKosign brought it up, but the rationale would be the fact that that the background is meant to be just that: a background, or a general overview of the situation in Gaza and Israel prior to the launch of the operation. Thus it could be argued that the inclusion of the various legal issues would be a more specialized and specific area of interest best suited for the actual article on the blockade. Regardless, if the legality is to be discussed, then it must follow WP:DUE and, if the Palmer report is to be included, it must be noted that it only refers to the naval blockade. A whole paragraph, like the one you mentioned, would be too much though. JDiala (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to discuss the legality in more detail, I suggest copying the entire last paragraph of the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I also prefer to have a few sentences discussing legality of the blockade, including one - such as the one I wrote above - for Palmer report. WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? No, the legality of the blockade should not be removed. This is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. What is the rationale for removing it? The UN specifically quoted the legality of the blockade here and the EU has made statements about it too, among many others. The discussion here is not whether the legality should be included or not. If you wish to open a discussion on that, use a separate section, so that people are not confused. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: Fine, I can agree with that. You can remove all references to its legality. Though that would also mean removing Israel's legal argument ("Israel maintains that the blockade is legal") JDiala (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: This is not 'for the sake of argument'. The report itself is available online [6]. And yes, you can do that for now(In fact,that's what I'll do), but there's still the WP:DUE issue. Regarding mentioning the legality of the blockade, that needs to stay. That's one of the reasons we have the 'background' section: so readers can understand the broader context of the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the blockade itself is highly relevant. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the report indeed only meant the naval part of the blockade. Is there any objection to writing 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".' ? Another option is to keep the question of legality of the blockade out of this article and leave the discussion where it belongs, that is in the article dealing with it. WarKosign (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: @WarKosign: I concur with KingsIndian. The Palmer report is a WP:DUE issue. There is almost unanimous international consensus regarding the illegality of the blockade. Moreover, the statement "[a] United Nations commission ruled that the blockade was "both legal and appropriate" misrepresents the report. It only refers to the naval blockade; not the blockade as a whole, and the report itself repeatedly emphasizes the humanitarian issue in Gaza. The section on the blockade now sounds as though there's some sort of international debate as to whether or not the blockade is legal and/or appropriate, when in reality, there simply is not. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- That Israeli considers the blockade necessary is already mentioned: there is no suppression of one point of view. This particular tidbit is simply taking one data point out of the whole saga of the legality of the blockade. It is not just NGOs which disputed this opinion, it is a five member UN panel of international law experets who did this. And there is the Goldstone report separately and the Red Cross and so on. Read the last paragraph of the other article I quoted. Adding this tidbit by itself is simply false balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I see three options:
- Adding 'A UN commission headed by Geoffrey Palmer ruled in 2010 that the naval blockade was "both legal and appropriate".'
- Removing legality discussion completely
- Copy/transclude the whole legality paragraph from the lead of the blockade article, which also mentions the Palmer report.
I prefer #1 but any other option is also acceptable with me. Looks like Kingsindian opposes #2. Opinions ? Do we need an RfC on this ?WarKosign (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a fourth option: keep things as they are, which I support. I oppose #1 and #2. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, this option exists. I however object to it because of WP:NPOV. Anyone objecting to #3 ?WarKosign (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence says "the overwhelming consensus is...", which is clearly correct, as this discussion and elsewhere (this has been discussed multiple times) has shown. As for #3, it looks to me like JDiala is opposing it, though he can clarify. I only support #3 as a last resort. I prefer #4. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, this option exists. I however object to it because of WP:NPOV. Anyone objecting to #3 ?WarKosign (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Further items requiring consideration
Jonathan Cook,'Analysis: Is there a plan to force Palestinians into Sinai?,' Middle East Eye, 25 September 2014. The UN observer of Israel's behaviour in Gaza in 56 came to the same conclusion, so there is some historical depth to the idea, as well. And the article connects this to the latest war. Feel welcome to introduce this, anyone.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(2) Rotem Elizera, 'Three soldiers who fought in Gaza war commit suicide,' Ynet 1 October 2014.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(3) Mitch Ginsburg, 'IDF general: Lack of understanding led to unwanted Gaza war,' The Tims of Israel 30 September 2014Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(4) Mairav Zonszein, 'How Israel Silences Dissent,' New York Times 26 September 2014. (relevant for harassement and journalists section)Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The first one, there is no plan to "force" Palestinians into the Sinai. Sisi privately offered the Palestinians land in the Sinai to house Palestinian refugees until the Palestinians get a state. This was entirely an optional Egyptian proposal, which Israel admitted they were shocked to see, and Abbas rejected it.
- The second one remains to be seen. PTSD is common in all wars.
- The third I don't really see anything useful.
- The fourth is an op-ed and it doesn't say anything about journalists, and it's generalizing individual actions are the result of Israel's government doing, which is obviously bogus.Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggested second paragraph of the lead
This has been going on for over a month. I suggest this (pinging TheTimesAreAChanging):
The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions[1][2] intensified after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members.[3][4][5][6] Israel considered Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza[7] and carried out air-strikes there. On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel.[2][8][9][10]
References
- ^ Hendrickson, David C. "The Thrasybulus Syndrome: Israel's War on Gaza". The National Interest. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
intermittent rocket fire from Gaza splinter groups. ... Hamas kept its fire...
- ^ a b Nathan Thrall (1 August 2014). "Hamas's Chances". London Review of Books.
- ^ Orlando Crowcroft, 'Hamas official: we were behind the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers', The Guardian, 21 August 2014.
- ^ Fiske, Gavriel (20 August 2014). "Top Hamas sheikh admits to June kidnapping of Israeli teens". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 21 August 2014.
- ^ Jack Khoury, Hamas claims responsibility for three Israeli teens' kidnapping and murder', Haaretz 21 August 2014.
- ^ 'Mashal: Hamas was behind murder of three Israeli teens', Ynet, 22 August 2014.
- ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4536257,00.html
- ^ Christa Case Bryant, 'Ending détente, Hamas takes responsibility for today's spike in rocket fire (+video)', Christian Science Monitor, 7 July 2014: "After days of steadily increasing strikes, Hamas militants in Gaza launched at least 40 rockets tonight alone in what appears to be a decision to escalate the conflict. The dramatic spike in rocket attacks is likely to put significant pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to heed calls for an all-out offensive against the Islamist movement, which Israel and the US consider a terrorist organization. While there has been intermittent rocket fire from Gaza since the cease-fire that ended the November 2012 Pillar of Defense conflict, Israel has credited Hamas with largely doing its best to keep the various militant factions in line. Today, however, Hamas took direct responsibility for the fire for the first time, sending a barrage of dozens of rockets into Israel in the worst day of such violence in two years."
- ^ "Gaza-Israel conflict: Is the fighting over?". BBC. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility for firing rockets for the first time in 20 months, after a series of Israeli air strikes in which several members of its armed wing were killed.
- ^ "IDF's Operation "Protective Edge" Begins Against Gaza". Jewish Press. Retrieved 8 July 2014.
Comments below.
Comments
I have made two changes:
- Added "Israel considered Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza and carried out air-strikes there"
- Changed the next sentence slightly to "On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis..." instead of saying explicitly it was an airstrike. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate this attempt at compromise. That said, I do not think anyone denies there was an Israeli airstrike on a tunnel in Khan Yunis, although there is some question as to when it occurred and if it caused the explosion that killed the Hamas operatives. In addition, I believe we should mention the airstrike was on a tunnel (which the Israelis claimed was being used for an "imminent terror attack"). I would prefer something like "Hamas assumed formal responsibility for firing rockets towards Israel on July 7, after an Israeli aistrike on a tunnel reportedly killed 7 Hamas members in Khan Yunis, although Israel denied responsibility for their deaths" (could be explained in the body).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am afraid NPOV does not mean "he said/she said". Hamas says six members of its military wing died in a strike, Israel says, no, it was a collapsed tunnel etc. The same WP:RS which are used for "non-Hamas" are also used for the "7 Hamas militants killed by an airstrike". I removed the airstrike because the precise manner of death is not important: 7 Hamas militants were killed, they responded with rockets, and Israel responded with OPE. I am open to whether the he said/she said should be discussed in the "immediate events" section, but definitely not in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: Do you object to mentioning at all in this paragraph that Israel denies killing the 7 in the tunnel ? The facts of the airstrike and their death seem undeniable, and so is Hamas's claim that Israel killed them and the resulting rocket fire. He said/she said doesn't have to imply equal validity - it can be written that Israel initially assumed responsibility for the killing but latter said they were killed by explosives in the tunnel (It is what the sources say, right ?) WarKosign (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- To your latter question, no, the sources do not say that. Newspapers report he said/she said -- that's their job. The sources in the first sentence (Thrall and Hendrickson) say that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6 in a bombing raid. As I said, the precise manner in which they died is not important, but the agency (X killed Y) should not be obfuscated. (I am happy with adding "bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza") Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: Do you object to mentioning at all in this paragraph that Israel denies killing the 7 in the tunnel ? The facts of the airstrike and their death seem undeniable, and so is Hamas's claim that Israel killed them and the resulting rocket fire. He said/she said doesn't have to imply equal validity - it can be written that Israel initially assumed responsibility for the killing but latter said they were killed by explosives in the tunnel (It is what the sources say, right ?) WarKosign (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am afraid NPOV does not mean "he said/she said". Hamas says six members of its military wing died in a strike, Israel says, no, it was a collapsed tunnel etc. The same WP:RS which are used for "non-Hamas" are also used for the "7 Hamas militants killed by an airstrike". I removed the airstrike because the precise manner of death is not important: 7 Hamas militants were killed, they responded with rockets, and Israel responded with OPE. I am open to whether the he said/she said should be discussed in the "immediate events" section, but definitely not in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I assume the second half of the second paragraph ("On 17 July [... ... ...] apart or expired.") has only been omitted because it isn't being changed and not because anyone is suggesting dropping it. Kingsindian's proposed rewriting looks good to me. If including the details that the seven people died "by airstrike" and "in a tunnel" is important, the most concise way of doing that I can think of is to change "after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis" to "after an Israeli airstrike on a tunnel in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas militants". I don't oppose adding either of those details, though I note that I also don't think they're so vital that they have to be in the lead, and I imagine including the tunnel bit does make it more likely that people will try to insert Israel's prediction that the tunnel was going to be used for an attack, which could then prompt other people to try to insert information on the Israeli acts that Gazans cite as causing them to launch such attacks, which would bring us back to what was discussed a few weeks ago — the parties involved see everything as tit-for-tat-for-tit-for-tat for the last ~60–6000 years. For better or for worse (probably for better), we've so far managed to avoid listing too many "hops" (as Kingsindian put it; i.e. links in the chain of events) per event; for example, we don't give any context on why Palestinians kidnapped and murdered the 3 Israeli teens, and we don't mention the Beitunia killings which some sources suggest was a cause of this conflict. -sche (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a reason to include the airstrike and the tunnel if the fact that they were killed by the airstrike is disputed. According to this source, quoting "a senior military source" presumably in the IDF:
Addressing the deaths of seven Hamas members in a tunnel in south Gaza, the source said they died as a result of explosives they planted in an underground assault tunnel aimed at an IDF target. "This was designed to enable a significant terror attack," the source said. "In recent days, we have operated in this area, and we will continue to act against the threat of tunnels in the coming days," he added. The seven Hamas members did not die as a result of an Israeli air strike, the source explained. The tunnel was found by the army a few days ago. "Last night, for reasons that are unclear, Hamas decided to handle the explosives. They handled bombs that were in the tunnel, and were ready to go off against military targets. The explosives went off, leading to seven casualties," said the source.
- TheTimesAreChanging's RfC, with all the problems in its definition, is there to decide whether this claim should be represented, in the lead or elsewhere. I think the lead should state that the cause of the death is disputed, and then include the details of the conflicting versions in Immediate events. WarKosign (talk)
- I have nothing further to add, please see the earlier comment. Yes, Israel made claims, and Hamas made claims, and newspapers reported them: that's their job. No, we are not obliged to add anything either side says in the lead, just as we are not obliged to add that Hamas claims 1000 soldiers killed. We look at what neutral WP:RS say, I gave two examples, rest can be seen in the section. If you disagree, open an RfC precisely stating what you want to include, and let people make comments. The previous RfC is useless, for reasons already mentioned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it was only jpost I would agree that it falls under WP:FRINGE. However, there is also Haaretz here and here saying "Nine Palestinian militants were killed over the course of the night, but Israel claims at least six of them died when a tunnel collapsed" and "...lead forces were hit, apparently in a “work accident.”", and IBA also reported the same incident (translation). Hamas shouting loudly "Israel did it" does not make it the truth. WarKosign (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- When there is a source conflict like this on a specific event, editors have two options. Delineate in detail both versions and variants or make a concise synthetic sentence which is prejudicial neither to one claim nor the other. If the former, it becomes unusable in the lead (excess detail =wp:undue for lead paras), if the latter it can be used in the lead. Remember TTAAC, this is not about the 'truth' because that is unknown, at the moment, to us.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the context of the talk page, by 'truth' I mean 'neutral and accurate representation of reliable sources' -WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- BBC reported it too: "Hamas said it was responding to "Zionist aggression", after accusing Israel of killing five of its fighters. Israel denied killing the men, but warned of a "deterioration" and said 1,500 reservists had been called up." I tried - and failed - to find the places in Thrall's and/or Hendrickson's works where they say that Israel killed the militants, or mention the Khan Younis incident at all. Please point me to them. 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants" (Thrall), "killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6" (Hendrickson). Full quotes are given in the section as above. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that the sources are reconcilable. According to many sources IDF bombed in the area of the tunnels a few days before the event, then the militants entered the tunnel (probably to assess the damage to the explosives they had in the tunnel), and it's entirely possible the explosives were unstable and exploded killing the militants - whether because of their carelessness or just vibration from their footsteps. It can be argued if the cause of their death was the bombing or the presence of the explosives - without either they wouldn't die. Thrall and Hendrickson (and Hamas) see Israel as responsible, but do not give details that contradict Israel's factual claim, only the attribution of responsibility. 11:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants" (Thrall), "killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6" (Hendrickson). Full quotes are given in the section as above. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- When there is a source conflict like this on a specific event, editors have two options. Delineate in detail both versions and variants or make a concise synthetic sentence which is prejudicial neither to one claim nor the other. If the former, it becomes unusable in the lead (excess detail =wp:undue for lead paras), if the latter it can be used in the lead. Remember TTAAC, this is not about the 'truth' because that is unknown, at the moment, to us.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it was only jpost I would agree that it falls under WP:FRINGE. However, there is also Haaretz here and here saying "Nine Palestinian militants were killed over the course of the night, but Israel claims at least six of them died when a tunnel collapsed" and "...lead forces were hit, apparently in a “work accident.”", and IBA also reported the same incident (translation). Hamas shouting loudly "Israel did it" does not make it the truth. WarKosign (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have nothing further to add, please see the earlier comment. Yes, Israel made claims, and Hamas made claims, and newspapers reported them: that's their job. No, we are not obliged to add anything either side says in the lead, just as we are not obliged to add that Hamas claims 1000 soldiers killed. We look at what neutral WP:RS say, I gave two examples, rest can be seen in the section. If you disagree, open an RfC precisely stating what you want to include, and let people make comments. The previous RfC is useless, for reasons already mentioned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreChanging's RfC, with all the problems in its definition, is there to decide whether this claim should be represented, in the lead or elsewhere. I think the lead should state that the cause of the death is disputed, and then include the details of the conflicting versions in Immediate events. WarKosign (talk)
In the proposed section, if we accept that Israel killing the 7 in Khan Yunis is not the only possible version of the truth, what can be written instead to be short and acceptable ? How about this:
On 7 July after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis with the sides disagreeing on the cause (Israel's airstrike or militants accidentally triggering explosives), Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel.
Or even shorter:
On 7 July after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis with the sides disagreeing on the cause, Hamas itself assumed responsibility for missiles fired from Gaza and launched 40 rockets towards Israel.
I think second one is too short to be clear. WarKosign (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since I do not accept your hypothetical, I will not comment on it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR.
- NOTE 1: It sounds quite silly, non-Hamas increased attacks in response to crack down on Hamas.... are there more than one source for this?
- NOTE 2: I'm not loving the first paragraph. I don't mean to disrupt discussion about the 2nd one, but "Thereafter, seven weeks of Israeli bombardment, Palestinian rocket attacks, and ground fighting" seems like unnecessary information, plus one fluff term for the Israeli offensive. Why not just use something like, fighting concluded after 50 days while discussion on full terms of the ceasefire were to be continued. Push casualty figures down. They serve mostly for a POV view that you good/bad/winner/loser is defined by the number of casualties.
Whoosh, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously, I support WarKosign's proposal, with further elaboration provided in the body. Only Kingsindian seems to be holding back any such changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described?
Currently the article quotes several sources [7] [8] [9] [10] and says in the lead "On 7 July, after an airstrike killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis..." and again in Immediate Events "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas operatives".
There are several sources saying that Israel denies killing the operatives: [11] [12] [13] [14] (translation) [15], some of them saying that the operatives weren't in the tunnel during the airstrike and died some time later, when explosives stored in the tunnel went off.
What should the article say on the subject? WarKosign (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Brief comments
- Include both versions, per WP:NPOV. Neutral statement in the lead (do not mention cause of death or mention that it is disputed) and give details of both versions in Immediate Events. WarKosign (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have already given my suggestion of how it should be presented in the lead. WP:NPOV is not false balance. All the sources given above for the "alternative view" are news sources simply reporting what each side claims. That is their job. A slew of neutral, mainstream, third party secondary sources state that Israel killed the Hamas militants on July 6. The precise manner in which they died is not important, so it is left out in my draft. Two sources are cited, but many more can be given. This is a list of sources [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. (All are in this section). Some of them can be dismissed as biased etc. but not all. These sources have a much higher weight than any "he said/she said" source. Furthermore, as stated in many sources, those were not the only people who died on July 6. There were multiple airstrikes on July 6, in which upto 9 people were killed. Erasing the agent which killed them is not WP:NPOV. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Remove from lead (keep in a detailed step by step fighting development section) (first option) - this tunnel incident is a complete non-notable as a so-called trigger for the fighting. It is a small unavoidable step, not a flaming match. No one should care about it in the wider perspective. e.g. this source doesn't care: Since the start on the night of 7 July 2014...[22]. On the same level, IDF's spokesman Peter Lerner re-tweeted a BBC report[23] about "#Pallywood"[24]
- Keep mention to minimum -- While I consider this incident a non-notable for the WP:LEAD, if consensus prefers they'd be mentioned, I'd promote giving as little detail/varying views as possible in the lead. Thus, just mention Hamas viewed Israel as responsible for killing of 6 militants/civilians on July 7th, promised consequences and increased rocket attacks, launching 120[25] projectiles into Israel. Israel, thus, blah blah... (rockets have bigger impact as a lit match than a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel)
- (third option) Mention everything - both views on tunnel incident and Pallywood report (above) - Israeli military spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner: "militants went into the tunnel to assess the damage from the air strike and meddled with some explosives",[26] Here it is again from an ABC News Correspondent (retweeted by Lerner).
- Querry: what's the copyright status on the image of these 6 guys on this site?
Whoosh, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
@WarKosign: I am not clear what your position is. In my suggested draft for the lead, the cause of death (airstrike or tunnel collapse) is not mentioned. Is that acceptable or not? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: (Moved your comment to Discussion) I see the draft saying "On 7 July, after Israel killed seven Hamas militants in Khan Yunis, ...". In my opinion Israel killing the militants is not a fact but rather a claim and should be represented as such. “WarKosign” 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: I have been going on for over a week about how things should be precise. Why don't people write concretely what their proposal is, like I did? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: I am not sure I understand what your proposal is. I am trying to be as precise as possible. The sources seem to agree that OPE started on July 8 as a reaction to Hamas taking responsibility for heavy rocket fire on July 7, which they declared was in reaction to the airstrike on July 6 that supposedly killed 7 militants. Currently the lead does not detail other airstrikes and other rocket fire, only mentioning a crackdown and that the rocket fire "intensified". In Immediate Events both are mentioned, including numbers of Palestinians killed and arrested, and number of rockets fired. This RfC deals specifically with the event in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 that began with IDF airstrike and ended with Hamas taking responsibility for rocket fire. It is possible that IDF killed the militants and Hamas was correct to attribute the responsibility. It is also possible that the militants blew themselves up on their own and the airstrike was unrelated. In my opinion it is most probable that both the airstrike and their own actions were contributing factors. Since we cannot know which version is correct, I say that we either represent both or represent none. The fact that respectable scholars do not mention the Israeli claim may mean either that they discarded it as completely false, or that they were unaware of it, or (in my opinion most likely) they did not consider the question of responsibility for death of the militants important - the fact that Hamas blamed Israel and commenced heavy fire is far more important, therefore I prefer to have the lead say just that, and explain the details in Immediate Events. “WarKosign” 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @WarKosign: I have been going on for over a week about how things should be precise. Why don't people write concretely what their proposal is, like I did? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)