Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 327: Line 327:
:::::The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Alternatively, why are we having an RFC that doesn't address your tag?[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Alternatively, why are we having an RFC that doesn't address your tag?[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::Having an RfC precede the edit is actually the ''diplomatic'' way to do things. We also don't hold RfCs on whether to apply tags; we hold RfCs on substantive content disputes, apply the tag to indicate an ongoing discussion, and remove the tag once it's resolved. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::Having an RfC precede the edit is actually the ''diplomatic'' way to do things. We also don't hold RfCs on whether to apply tags; we hold RfCs on substantive content disputes, apply the tag to indicate an ongoing discussion, and remove the tag once it's resolved. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::This RFC isn't preceding the edit, the edit is already in the article and the proposer is asking whether it should stay. I didn't suggest we should have an RFC on whether to apply tags, I asked whether this RFC addresses the issues you raised by your tag and if it does not then why are we having this RFC?[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:29, 24 March 2020


failed verification?

From CRS:

Violence had already resumed in the waning days of the cease-fire. After an Israeli raid on November 4 (ostensibly aimed at preventing Hamas’s use of tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers), rocket fire on Israel resumed with greater intensity from Gaza. Some analysts speculated that the cross-border skirmishes and rocket fire that continued into December represented jockeying by both Israel and Hamas for more favorable renegotiating positions as the cease-fire’s December 19 expiration approached. On the 19th, Hamas issued a statement on its website that “The cease-fire is over and there will not be a renewal because the Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions.” On December 24, approximately 88 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza, followed by another 44 on December 25. The magnitude of this assault—although it did not cause casualties—apparently prompted the Israeli leadership’s decision to launch the December 27 air strike and larger offensive

From the news analysis article (not an opinion piece) on al-Jazeera:

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

What exactly failed verification here? nableezy - 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been no response I will be removing the tags. nableezy - 17:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"÷subsequent to what Hamas stated was a unilateral Israeli violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier." where does the CRS source say anything about that Hamas said this was in response to "violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier"? In fact does the other source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source has a quote from Hamas, The cease-fire is over and there will not be a renewal because the Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions. The second source says Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day. Here is the Guardian saying In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".

"The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said. What exactly has failed verification here? nableezy - 19:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still no mention of "violation of a ceasefire several weeks earlier". I shall reword.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely unacceptable that information in the lead is sourced to an opinion piece which does not even reference it. I previously tried to remove this, and Nableezy promptly reverted it. Do not restore this information without discussing it here or supplying a proper source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt an opinion piece, it was discussed here, additional sourcing has been provided, and I am reverting you once more. nableezy - 15:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: The current wording provides only a quote from Hamas and glosses over a complex issue. Further issues:
  • You are repeatedly restoring the "stated goal" language, in direct contradiction of WP:SAY. A "stated goal" suggests an "unstated goal." If a source says that an organization's goal was X, it is editorializing to suggest that this is not the actual reason.
  • High quality sources like this one from the NYT describes how the raid that Hamas alleges broke the ceasefire was a measure to destroy tunnels being used for an "imminent attack." NPOV requires that we present both sides that have been reported on this issue, not selectively omit facts in favor of one.
My reading of that article is that it started with Israeli entry into the tunnel.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinion piece is entirely unreliable as a source for any facts, especially in the lead. You should not have restored this citation.

Finally, you need to stop blanket reverting on this and other I/PA pages. Other editors are allowed to raise valid issues and make changes without you acting as a firewall to any improvements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I read that as being applicable to both the rocket attacks and the response.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I read it the same way, but that's not my issue. See WP:SYNTH. We need a source applying that definition to this particular context. See WP:SYNTH. We can't just describe a set of events and then juxtapose that with a definition that WP editors think is applicable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's pretty much boiler plate language. You can find it in here for example which is all about Cast Lead https://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/71266f7cd47bbdea85257615004d8635 I'm reasonably certain that a search under Goldstone would throw up sources using similar language as well.Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the source given further down the lead could just as well be used http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8257301.stm Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If sources say that there were human rights violations, that's acceptable, but that's a separate issue that including a reference to a generic definition. In addition, note that the sources you are providing are dated, and referencing a since-disavowed report by the UN (The Goldstone Report). See here: NYT piece in 2011 on Goldstone Report. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been disavowed lol, Goldstone wrote he doesnt believe some of the conclusions, every other contributor responded that they do. nableezy - 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the material this thread is about is not sourced to an opp-edd piece.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we say stated goal because reliable sources say that there were indeed unstated goals and describe the goals that the IDF and the Israeli government publicly stated as their "stated goals". Please read WP:SAY. The BBC for example reports it as "The Israelis say they attacked in order to stop the firing of rockets into Israel." To accept as fact what the sources report as the view of one of the antagonists here violates WP:NPOV. And actually read your sources. The NYT article says that an Israeli military official says that the the tunnel was ready for an “imminent” operation. Please do not make things up. Finally, a news analysis piece is not an opinion piece. You should try to internalize the point that because a source says things you do not like does not make it an "opinion piece" that you can disqualify on your own say-so. Besides, there are two other sources there, or are you not paying attention to the material you are blindly removing? Ill add another source to satisfy your objection, but per WP:LEAD that isnt needed to be sourced in the lead as the same material appears later in the article. And if you werent paying attention, that line is in that paragraph because it discusses accusations of indiscriminate attacks by both sides here. nableezy - 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, See below:
  • Dressing up the piece by Mark LeVine in Al Jazeera as "news analysis" is meaningless, and also incorrect. Mark LeVine is not a reporter at Al Jazeera, the (opinion) piece represents the views and restatements of facts of a single author, not an editorial board (See the disclaimer "The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of Al Jazeera"), and it is not a reliable source for statements of facts.
  • The sources do not suggest an "unstated goal," that's apparently your interpretation, see WP:OR. If you can provide a source suggesting an "unstated goal," then do so, otherwise, do not restore that language again. The quote you provided from BBC does not suggest an "unstated goal," and this article shouldn't either.
  • You did not address the obvious WP:SYNTH issue in your screed above with the human rights violation report, you have just ignored it and included it in your blanket revert.
  • The line from the NYT is The [Hamas] tunnel was ready for an “imminent” operation, the [Israeli] official said.. In other words, an imminent attack. My characterization of the source is correct.

I suggest you "internalize" that other input about content is not always a matter of "not liking" something. You should respond to my and others' issues with the content. The edits that you restored to the page are sloppy in their use of language and sources and includes unacceptable POV-slanted editorializing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link. You see the section it is in? News. See the CRS source. See the Guardian source. As far as "stated goal". See for example NYTimes: Israel’s stated goal was to destroy the infrastructure of Hamas, The Atlantic: The declared goal of Israel's air and naval strikes on Gaza is to stop the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas from launching rockets that have targeted southern Israel for years. You dont get to insert as fact what sources attribute as the publicly stated view of one of the belligerents. Now, SYNTH. The Amnesty source discussing the law on distinction is about this topic. And no, your portrayal of the NYTimes here is not accurate, you claimed that the tunnel was being used for an imminent attack, the NYTimes says that an Israeli military official says that it was ready for an imminent attack. Again, we do not accept as fact what the source reports as an allegation. Get it this time? What SYNTH? Who are these nebulous others that I need to respond to? nableezy - 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

RE: the SYNTH issue — Noting what constitutes a human rights violation is SYNTH if it is not from a source applying that definition/rule in this particular context. The line The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law. is not accompanied by any sources doing that, except for one citation which references an incident involving two soldiers being sentenced in Israeli military court. Using these three sources in conjunction, two just providing basic definitions and a third referencing an isolated incident, to suggest widespread human rights violations is clear WP:SYNTH and should not have been restored. This line warrants immediate removal, and I suggest you partial-revert on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol, sure. See Mark LeVine. See that for example he is the author of Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine, published by University of California Press. See, even if this were a self-published piece that it would be perfectly acceptable as a source per WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Even if Levine put this up on a blog on geocities it would be acceptable to use as a reliable source. And, hello, there are several other sources there. And have you even looked at the AI paper? Because there's a section titled PROHIBITION ON INDISCRIMINATE OR DISPROPORTIONATE ATTACKS, and it reads (pp. 15-16)

Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, which are those: “of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”

Israel’s firing of artillery into densely populated civilian areas in Gaza may amount to indiscriminate attacks. Prior to the current fighting there had been many cases of civilians in Gaza killed by inaccurate shelling. Israel itself appeared to acknowledge that its use of artillery was unacceptably risky when it announced that it had suspended artillery shelling into Gaza in November 2006, after artillery shelling killed 18 members of a family in Beit Hanoun, in northern Gaza, which the Israeli army later stated had been launched in error. Artillery and mortar attacks and shelling from tanks and from naval ships has proved to be insufficiently accurate to pinpoint targets among densely populated residential areas in Gaza. Israel has a considerable arsenal of advanced weaponry and has an obligation to choose means of attack that minimizes the risk to civilians. (See section 1.3.4, Precautions in attack.)

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have been firing indiscriminate rockets at Israeli population centres, killing three Israeli civilians since 27 December 2008 and injuring others. Even if they intend to attack military installations in Israel, using these weapons, which cannot be accurately targeted, violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack.

Disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, are also those that: “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” (Article 51(5b) of Additional Protocol I) Israel has bombed civilian homes in Gaza, claiming that it was targeting military leaders of Hamas. Some attacks on homes of Hamas leaders have killed dozens of civilians, even though it should have been apparent to Israeli forces that the target of attack was not likely to be present or that civilians were likely to be killed in the attack.

Intentionally launching a disproportionate attack is a war crime. Launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is also a war crime. In addition, the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime.

Please actually read the sources cited. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 00:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: Then instead of just reciting the fact that "indiscriminate fire is illegal under international law," the article should indicate what the report says above: that Hamas assaults were indiscriminate, and the Israeli attacks may have been indiscriminate. An isolated definition of what the international community believes tells the reader nothing substantive and conveys information only by inference.

Regarding Mark LeVine, a professor with a limited body of work, even if we accept him as an "expert" meeting WP:SELFPUB, which we would have to in order to use that piece, it is ridiculous to assert that an opinion piece is the best source available for the factual record of a complex issue that was the subject of international attention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt an opinion piece jesus christ. And even if it were it is still a perfectly usable source. And there are other sources cited! And lol to that interesting interpretation of Amnesty. nableezy - 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Mark LeVine clearly WP:UNDUE and can't be used --Shrike (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afaics, Mark Levine has not been used directly in support of the article text (although I cannot see any reason not to, if attributed). The ref is given there more by way of additional verification of the material which has been taken from the Congressional report. In other words, removing the ref would not change the article text at all but that was not what was done, the article text and all three sources were just removed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE implies there is some equally or more reliable source that disputes what Levine says. Where are they? Because right now its just two random people on the internet not liking what the source says, and that has been and will remain a completely ignorable objection. Beyond that, again, there are additional sources for this material. nableezy - 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other sources for what Mark LeVine says, I suggest you find them and insert them into the article, because this author is obviously is unsuited for the lead as providing a factual basis for anything at least in the AJ piece. A professor with a couple of books writing a contributed article ("news analysis" or "opinion" is irrelevant, it doesn't benefit from Al Jazeera reliability). And the Hamas quote is a waste of space -- it should be replaced by the background information offered by the NYT (see what a reliable source and secondary news reporting actually is). The primary sources also need to be replaced by secondary sources. This lead has multiple areas that need improvement, none of which are "ignorable." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus H Christ, they are already there and cited. Your not liking what a reliable source, and guess what Levine in Al-Jazeera is exactly that, says is indeed ignorable. nableezy - 18:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Al Jazeera's reliability does not apply to the LeVine piece. It is a contributed article not subject to editorial fact checking or review. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:SPS. Ill even quote it for you since the first time didnt take. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. An established expert in the relevant field whose work has previously been published by a reliable source. Levine himself is a reliable source, full stop. And hello, there are several other sources already cited there. Get it this time? nableezy - 20:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, more policy. WP:REPUTABLE: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. There is quite literally no personal opinion of Levine here anyway, and this wikilawyer-esque objection has no basis in policy. None. nableezy - 20:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is very simple: There are far better sources available on the factual record that the lead gives an overview of than a contributed online article by Mark LeVine. WP:SPS. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Even if we accept Mark LeVine as an "established expert" based on a limited body of published work (which does not include the source under discussion), there are almost certainly better sources available. Furthermore, he is making an argument in that piece — an objective evaluation of the facts is superior when the purpose of the lead is to summarize facts. Example of a better source: [1]. If you want to include Mark LeVine elsewhere in the article, by all means do so, but the lead requires something more. This doesn't even address the over-reliance on primary source reports in several paragraphs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a better source that disputes him. Read WP:UNDUE. It does not allow for the mental gymnastics that you performing here. The NYTimes source you brought very obviously cannot be used to relate that strike to this topic because, duh, it was published before it. Levine does so, and he is perfectly fine for that purpose. Nothing in any policy supports your position that Levine cannot be used in the lead. Not. One. Thing. Ive quoted policy that explicitly allows for using Levine. You have simply made objections that have no basis in policy, and as a result I see no reason to continue entertaining you. nableezy - 21:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the best quality sources for a complex set of facts has everything to do with policy. Even if LeVine meets the bare minimum for reliability, it is ridiculous to argue that one of his contributed articles represents the best possible source to provide in the lead. The use of this source is disputed, and the The Guardian citation is adequate for that line; therefore, it is unnecessary to keep LeVine in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted policy, you have not. Try reading the policies and the sources before you say remove a book published by Routledge and substitute it with a 12 year old newspaper article, and in so doing mangle what the article even says. nableezy - 16:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: "Quoting policy" is meaningless when you don't apply it. I suggest you take a look where Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. comes from, which I cited earlier. My edit did not "mangle" the NYT source - the date was in fact June, not July, all that was required was a correction of the month, not wholesale removal. WP:PRESERVE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied them. Stop pinging me. I pretty obviously have this page watchlisted. And in case you havent noticed, I object to more than the date. But what a refreshing note on WP:PRESERVE lol. Maybe try implementing that instead of removing academic sources that dispute your favored narrative. nableezy - 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy of this article

I just removed a paragraph that sought to explain how Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire." This is a line pulled from a report that simultaneously acknowledges Hamas violations of the ceasefire. The NYT reported violations by Hamas that summer. These are blatant misrepresentations or errors that I suspect are the result of bad sources. This may be a widespread problem in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the line is pulled from Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 119-120. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. and it is quoted below. Kindly desist with these trash edits. nableezy - 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Check your attitude, as well as the report. That line is pulled from several pages of the report. I'm not buying this interpretation that's being supported by a limited range of possibly questionable sources, or the way the narrative is presented in the article that "Hamas abided by the ceasefire - until they didn't, but then it was Israel's fault." Here is a NYT report on a November violation of the report. I think the claim that Hamas "carefully abided the ceasefire" is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and seems highly questionable given the group's long history of random attacks on civilians/terrorism. That "book" is a collection of short essays and the author you cite as supporting this notion that Hamas maintained the ceasefire is a little-known professor. Everyone knows that books on the I/P conflict sells, so every supposed "expert" has one or two books floating around out there, and I think we should be applying extra scrutiny when they offer factual accounts that seem to conflict with news reports and common knowledge about how some of these groups operate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to challenge the reliability of Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. you are free to do so. WP:RSN is thataway. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why your doubt about a little known professor means nothing here. nableezy - 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Go to WP:RSN" is a common refrain but not really responsive to the issue I'm raising here. Again, I think that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies here and that we need particularly reliable, high-quality sources confirming that this was the case. It seems there is some reporting that throws this narrative of the careful adherence of the ceasefire by Hamas into question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly reliable and high quality source. And just for fun, here's another:

*Baconi, Tareq (2018). Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-5036-0581-7. As domestic Palestinian talks faltered in late 2008, so did the ceasefire agreement with Israel. On November 4, in a dramatic escalation, Israel broke the ceasefire by raiding the Gaza Strip, citing preemptive self-defense against an attack tunnel that Hamas was allegedly building to capture Israeli soldiers. Hamas denied these accusations, noting that its tunnels were being built for defensive or economic purposes. It responded with a barrage of rockets over the border. This skirmish, although brief, demonstrated Israel's desire to end the ceasefire, as Hamas had anticipated. For its part, the movement sought the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Israel had not only failed to sufficiently relax the blockade, a key condition of the truce, but had evidently continued incursions into Gaza. This was even though Hamas had been remarkably effective, as Israeli security officials openly admitted, in enforcing the truce from the Gaza front.

You want to challenge a book published by Stanford University Press too? nableezy - 20:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

  • The Goldstone report is not "disavowed". It is not a primary source. It remains the official report of the UN Fact Finding Mission, which was not a party to this conflict and their report is not a primary source. It is attributed when cited. The mass removal of that is absurd.
  • A user changed Hamas stated its rocket fire was in response to Israeli military actions in violation of a ceasefire, saying the "Zionist enemy has not respected its conditions." to Hamas stated its rocket fire was in response to Israeli raids of Hamas-built tunnels, which were considered violations of the ceasefire. In doing so, the user removes the CRS source, and along with doing that distorts what the Guardian reports. What the Guardian actually says is

    A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

    Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

    Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

    One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

    Not that there were raids of tunnels, but raids in to Gaza, and nowhere does any source say that last bit about which were considered violations of the ceasefire. That is simply invented.
  • July 2008 - those rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad, a bit that the user saw fit to leave out in attempting to remove what qualified sources say about Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire later on, cited to a book published by Routeledge, which contains the following bit on p 120:

    it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launcehd a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokeperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'

nableezy - 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't serious, it would be funny. Editor introduces a NYT source dated June and claims that it covers July as well as otherwise cherrypicking the source (which dates from a few days after the ceasefire began and which is likely the only thing he could find because Hamas by and large, did observe the ceasefire for months eg http://www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/514498 "But, late last June, under Egyptian mediation, the Israeli government reached a ceasefire agreement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Since then, with only a few violations, the rocket salvoes from Gaza have stopped." Then editor realizes Levine wasn't actually being used for the sentence he disapproved of so deleted yet another source, a congressional report this time, in order to allow deletion of "unnecessary" (according to him). Deletes multiple other sources, claiming they are "faulty"?? There is no real intent to improve the article, the emphasis is on making Israel look less bad and Hamas look worse, POV editing, pure and simple.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCITE. If it's not necessary to support information in the lead, it doesn't need to be there. That includes primary sources like "reports" and contributed opinion/analysis pieces that do not offer anything factual. The NYT piece was not "cherry picked" -- it presents relevant information about a violation of the ceasefire, which is the subject of the paragraph in question. The goal is to ensure the article is balanced—you can call that "POV editing," but maybe you should consider self-reflection before accusing others. I further suggest you not follow Nableezy's lead conduct-wise and WP:AGF. I'll address the other wholesale reverts momentarily, because Nableezy undid a lot more than what he's noting above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe while youre at it explain why you removed the material on Hamas observing the ceasefire? That be great, thanks. nableezy - 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor, if you perhaps refrained from mass deletions, then mass reverting wouldn't be necessary. And why not take potentially controversial edits one at a time? It is difficult sometimes to separate out any useful edit in the middle of all the other and frankly, we shouldn't have to trawl through a mini mountain of edits to ascertain what you have done? I don't know why it is in there precisely but there is a clear exhortation written into the lead asking specifically that edits to the lead be agreed in talk first, I suspect it is because this article has been subject of past controversies. And yet you pay absolutely no attention to it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats been there for like 12 years now. But it is not that he or she is not paying attention to it, he or she is also removing that note entirely. nableezy - 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think "mass deletions" is an exaggeration, but we can agree to disagree. I'll try to move a bit slower with the reverts, but it would also take almost no time at all to do a quick review of my changes and revert only the ones you raised a direct issue with, rather than a wholesale revert. Some of my changes to the section on the use of child shields, such as how several Israeli soldiers were sentenced in Israeli court for the practice, were also removed, along with the sources supporting this information. The paragraph is written as if to suggest Israel condones the practice. Furthermore:
  • Any mention of the Goldstone report should not be 100% deferential and should be qualified with the fact that its author later walked back some of its accusations, namely that Israeli intentionally targeted civilians, among other prominent criticisms.
That was, and still is, in the lead, so I don't understand this objection.Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This narrative that Hamas carefully abided the ceasefire is not sitting right with me. If I'm wrong, then I'll accept it, but I think this is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and I'd like to find a few very, very high quality sources confirming that this is the case. Here is another article showing a November violation by Hamas. Again, this is something I'd like to do further research into. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The report did not have an author, it had several members of a fact finding mission. Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers all were part of that team. I do not care what sits right with you. If you would like to challenge any of the sources cited then please go to WP:RSN and explain how your discomfort with what scholarly sources say means we should defer to your favored narrative. nableezy - 19:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added back the sourced material re convictions.Selfstudier (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article claim that Hamas "carefully abided" the ceasefire? See the rocket counts in the below section (from Sderot, not lovers of Hamas). It is perfectly clear what happened. The Israeli narrative has been that it is Hamas who is responsible for launches no matter who makes them, but it is likely not true that Hamas is in a position to stop them all. In the crucial months before the tunnel incident there were only a few rockets so it is unreasonable to put forward a position that Hamas was breaching the ceasefire.Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: My "favored narrative" is the correct one. Scholarship is susceptible to error resulting from bias or faulty interpretation just like any other source, and it's appropriate to give those sources heightened scrutiny if something doesn't seem right or there is conflicting information out there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikieditor19920 is correct here, and actual scholars writing in a book published by Routledge are wrong. Give whatever scrutiny you like, the book is on its face reliable and of a much higher quality than a 12 year old news article that oh by the way doesnt even support what you want to use it for. If you would like to challenge an obviously reliable source feel free, but the place to do that is WP:RSN. nableezy - 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles from The New York Times, a newspaper which you may or may not have heard of, that reported violations of the ceasefire on the side of Hamas. On the other hand, we compare that with a short description of events by a scholar with a WP:BIAS and point of view on the matter. Who's narrative is going to be more reliable? And are you suggesting that either article has been subject to a correction, or are we now instituting a ban on sources not published in the last five years? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG for why scholarly books and articles are preferred over decade old news reports. Pay particularly close attention to the line Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. And by the way, the second NYT article postdates the Israeli incursion that the scholarly sources say broke the ceasefire. The June one says that the rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad. And neither of those is higher quality than a book published by Routledge or one published by Stanford Univeristy Press. Again, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG for why. Twelve years later, this is no longer news, which is what newspapers should generally be used for. nableezy - 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no way period contemporary news reports can trump later scholarship. Contemporary news articles are employed only of necessity, when an event breaks out requiring coverage. As soon as the furor of spinning dies down, and scholarship kicks in, we should where possible reformulate the text to reflect the wisdom of hindsight and research.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "contemporary news reports" are from the NYT, probably the most reliable available news source in the world, not only for fact-checking but for issuing later corrections if a story is later learned to be inaccurate. No such correction was issued here. This is not automatically "trumped" because it is contradicted by a few individual scholars whose works may or may not be as rigorously fact-checked. Nableezy can continue to offensively accuse me of "pushing a narrative," but there is a factual dispute here between sources. This should be noted in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:NEWSORG: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. nableezy - 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally. Not always. When the NYT reports events a certain way, in direct contradiction of opinionated scholars, that's something to take note of. It seems that the NYT did not characterize the raid of the tunnel as a breach of the ceasefire, whereas these scholars did. Both acknowledge that the Hamas response was a violation of the ceasefire. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that argument at RSN if you ever want to make it. As it stands, there are multiple academic sources that support the material in the article. A 12 year old NYTimes article doesnt change that. nableezy - 23:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue for RSN, this is an issue for this article. Two sources can both be reliable, apparently they drew different interpretations. The age of the NYT article(s) does nothing to diminish its reliability. WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't myself have a problem with dated sources, I thought that was your thing. You consistently fail to distinguish between the "official" ceasefire term of 6 months and the de facto end of it following the tunnel incident after which the ceasefire was honored only in the degree of its breach and Israeli unwillingness to implement the original terms of it. The inescapable facts remain that between 19 June and the IDF attack the ceasefire was more or less complied with by Hamas while Israel is considered by the sources to have materially breached the ceasefire leading to its de facto end.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, if your primary focus is on the ceasefire, a better article to discuss that in would be the 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, it's just a summary of that in here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My focus is on this article, in which the ceasefire is a central event. The problem is the article omits key points of view and Nableezy presents WP:PARTISAN sources as if they are the only authoritative view on the matter, and tries to bully other editors out of any desire to participate, but that's a separate and possibly future ANI issue. There is a clear contradiction here; the NYT attributes the break in ceasefire to Hamas, while a number of scholars highly critical of Israel (whose views may also be reliable) offer a differing interpretation and suggest Israel's actions were the first to violate it. The article must present both of these interpretations in order to be in compliance with NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this tendentiously placed tag. First, I restored the missing info previously about the human shields, see above, so that is false. You have no consensus to argue that a 12 year old NYT article outweighs all the scholarly and third party RS to the contrary. I am filing an appropriate notice to your talk page, I suggest you leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Removing a tag unilaterally and immediately is what's tendentious when I've identified a legitimate basis for it. Earlier you said the age of the piece wasn't an issue, not all of a sudden it is. An older article from a reliable source is just as dependable as any other, and it directly contradicts some other sources on this page. At the very least, it is a reliable viewpoint that is not represented—it does not have to outweigh other scholarship—which is also not all scholarship. Kindly restore the tag and do not remove it again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You havent identified a legitimate basis for anything. Here is what your source says:

The confrontations, following five months of relative calm, began to spike this month when the Israeli military destroyed a tunnel being dug toward Israel. The army feared that the tunnel would be used to seize an Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for more than two years.

The Israelis said it was an isolated operation, not a violation of the cease-fire agreed to in June, and asked Egypt to pass that message to Hamas in advance. But six Hamas militants were killed during the tunnel’s destruction, leading Hamas to retaliate with rockets, which led to more closings and operations and then more rockets.

The other Times article says a rocket attack in the first few days was claimed by PIJ, not Hamas. And either way, neither of those dispute that Hamas had, as reported by several sources, adhered to the ceasefire. Nothing in them disputes that. And finally, yes, scholarship years removed is much more preferred to a news article on something that is no longer news. Im sorry that point has not been well taken, but feel free to query NPOV/N or RS/N on the weight each of these sources carry. nableezy - 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blowing the tunnel that killed people was the first act of kinetic violence, complicated by the advanced warning, and unilateral declaration of not a cease-fire violation. Building the tunnel in the first place was threatening/trolling but not violent "fire". Where you draw the line is hopelessly entangled. Probably why NYT did not assert anything, and why historians have overall stayed away from taking a strong position. As we can see it escalated into a disruption of the peace, but unclear if it was technically a violation of an agreement, and even if so who was at fault. -- GreenC 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These pieces documenting the series of events & possible violations/explanations offered by both sides gives valuable and important context is OR. And the NYT does not anywhere say that Hamas violated the ceasefire. That is likewise OR to make that conclusion. Beyond that, yes, 12 year old news articles should not be used for things that are no longer news when it is now the subject of actual scholarship. Our policies are clear on that. If you feel there is a weight issue here then take it to NPOV/N. nableezy - 21:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @GreenC:. - this is a complex issue. The tunnel was raided as an offensive threat, Hamas claims that it was used for defensive or other purposes. Of course, whether this is to be believed is in question. It's also a complicated issue of whether a pre-emptive strike, even if justified, violates a cease-fire.
Nableezy, the NYT no one has disputed that they are contemporary w/ the events in question so you don't need to keep repeating yourself about the dates of the NYT pieces. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are "news" -- the NYT offers a reliable accounting of facts that remains consistent to what's been reported to this day, they only differ slightly on the interpretation (they are more neutral). You have also presented no actual reasoning as to why these are not reliable sources that should be represented in the article (yet, of course, you have no problem with using apparently dated opinion/contributed pieces for factual background in the lead). What both NYT pieces confirm is that the violation of the ceasefire is not the straightforward issue that the article presents it as, based on a limited number of WP:PARTISAN scholars have asserted. We should strive for a better balance here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just saying that the authors are partisan does not make it so. Quote what exactly from the NYT confirm(s) that the violation of the ceasefire is not the straightforward issue that the article presents it as. Your say so does not make it so. nableezy - 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the quote from the NYT above and this article. The scholars that you provided are making an argument and criticizing Israel's actions. This makes them WP:PARTISAN because they have staked out an opinionated position and their analysis/argumentation reflects that. The same would be true for scholars arguing the opposite and critical of Hamas/Palestinian groups. The NYT is an objective recounter of fact, even if they are subject to implicit bias, and can be used for that purpose in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, quote what exactly from the NYT says anything about Hamas violating the ceasefire. An actual quote please. nableezy - 23:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to briefly say these events happened: a tunnel was built, IDF gave advanced warning then blew it up, 7 people died, there was retaliation and counter-retaliation. Without asserting either side violated a cease fire. -- GreenC 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to say that but the weight of all the sources says that Israel is the cause of the ceasefire breaking down. That is also what this article has said for years. A single NYT press article contradicted by multiple sources just doesn't cut it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Poynting; David Whyte (16 May 2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Routledge. pp. 120–. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have plenty more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot on the one hand dismiss the New York Times, an internationally recognized outlet for reliability/consistency, and then cite news articles from lesser known outlets that support a particular position. The fact is that multiple views are represented in reliable sources, including the NYT, and they should all be represented in the article as GreenC noted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But WE CAN dismiss it, your single source (which post dates the ceasefire breakdown that all other sources refer to as the operative date) is contradicted directly by multiple RS, scholarly and otherwise (not to mention my OR). Your position is hopeless and endless repetition of it counts for naught. If you are so convinced of the merits of your case, then start an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented no basis for dismissing a factual summary of events from this particular reliable source, one of the most reliable available, except that it does not comport with a competing narrative. This is absolutely not how valid decisions are reached or reflective of NPOV. You can call my position hopeless (so much for civility) and suggest an RfC or other bureaucratic measures, but the fact is that the article would benefit from inclusion of the NYT piece, multiple editors have agreed with this, and the best way forward is to include facts laid out in the NYT with proper sourcing/attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The basis has been presented to you ad nauseum (with multiple sources), your response is repetition. I never objected to inclusion of the NYT material, just your argument that Hamas is responsible for the breakdown of the ceasefire which is patently untrue. If you want the NYT in then we should also put in all the other sources that contradict it for proper balance. Or we could just leave it the way it has been without argument for the last 12 years.Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GreenC with should state the facts and let the reader decide who broken what to push certain POV.--Shrike (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the reliable sources cited say very clearly what broke the ceasefire. Here they are again:

*Baconi, Tareq (2018). Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-5036-0581-7. As domestic Palestinian talks faltered in late 2008, so did the ceasefire agreement with Israel. On November 4, in a dramatic escalation, Israel broke the ceasefire by raiding the Gaza Strip, citing preemptive self-defense against an attack tunnel that Hamas was allegedly building to capture Israeli soldiers. Hamas denied these accusations, noting that its tunnels were being built for defensive or economic purposes. It responded with a barrage of rockets over the border. This skirmish, although brief, demonstrated Israel's desire to end the ceasefire, as Hamas had anticipated. For its part, the movement sought the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Israel had not only failed to sufficiently relax the blockade, a key condition of the truce, but had evidently continued incursions into Gaza. This was even though Hamas had been remarkably effective, as Israeli security officials openly admitted, in enforcing the truce from the Gaza front.

*Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 119-120. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launcehd a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokeperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'

Not liking what the sources say does not make it "POV" sorry to tell you. nableezy - 23:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, it's past time for you to stop accusing other editors of "not liking something" for supposedly illegitimate reasons. It is appropriate to give greater scrutiny to opinionated sources when we're looking for a factual summary.
The source above has an obvious slant: it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Israeli position with words like "alleged," accepts the Hamas position that the tunnels were defensive completely uncritically, which is questionable, and points to the Israeli pre-emptive raid as an unqualified violation. The multiple NYT pieces describe the same facts in a more circumspect manner, and so can this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. Because a source does not accept as gospel truth the Israeli government's position it means it is slanted? Quote what from the Times, again not as strong a source as actual scholarship, that disputes any part of this. Ive asked you several times and you have failed to do so. There comes a point where tendentiousness turns into disruptiveness and I think it has been a while now. nableezy - 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the sources already in the article, those additional sources above that I supplied, these:

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

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

Norman Finkelstein (9 January 2018). Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. University of California Press. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-520-96838-7.

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

Tom Ruys; Olivier Corten; Alexandra Hofer (2018). The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach. Oxford University Press. pp. 730–. ISBN 978-0-19-878435-7.

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

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

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

To reiterate, you have no case. 10:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the unsigned comment above. The Finkelstein position is a WP:PARTISAN source from a professor denied tenure at their university. You are also missing the point entirely. The NYT and the CRS report both present an additional, alternative reliable viewpoint on a matter that is subject to interpretation. It's been established that a number of scholars regarded the Israeli raid as a violation of the ceasefire. I've presented reliable sources with an alternative view. Each warrants inclusion. WP:NPOV.
Let me also point out an astonishing double-standard briefly that's been made apparent on this talk page: Selfstudier and {{u|Nableezy} repeatedly argued for the inclusion of a contributed piece by Mark LeVine, dated 2009, as reliable for factual information in the lead. Presented with several news articles from the NYT, which include analysis and fact-checking subject to review by the editorial board of the NYT (unlike opinion pieces), these same users object because it does not comport with the narrative they've suggested. At the same time, Nableezy has accused other editors, in violation of WP:NPA, of rejecting views they "don't like." I've never rejected that scholars in reliable sources have characterized the Israeli raid as a ceasefire violation. I've suggested that there are also alternative reliable sources with a different view. I challenge either of these editors to show me one valid distinction between the LeVine piece and the NYT that justifies inclusion of the former but not the latter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I signed it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the ceasefire pre Cast Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup tags

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

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

I applied the tag after raising a specific issue regarding sourcing/presentation of facts, and other editors have agreed. I have provided my rationale above. The discussion would likely benefit from further participants, which is the purpose of applying a tag. Editors who disagree need to take the this talk page and wait until there is a consensus before unilaterally removing the tag and making accusations of bad faith and dismissing other editors' valid concerns. Objective3000, Selfstudier. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC) I'll add that I do hope we can reach a consensus and make room for further improvements to this article; this article should not be in a perpetual state where efforts to improve portions of this page are immediately reverted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above reply, start an RFC instead of all this messing about with pointy tags.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this before. Also, you are gaming 1RR. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you should be ignoring the guidelines for tags, because there is an ongoing discussion on this matter (see above). Tags exist for a reason; the criteria for applying the tag have clearly been met, and the criteria for removal (let alone within an hour) have not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We (3 editors so far) are as entitled as you to dispute the criteria. It is for you to convince us that your contemplated additions to a long time stable article have value and so far you have not persuaded any of us. Also why, if your argument is about the ceasefire aspect only, have you tagged the entire article and not just the appropriate section? Shall I do it for you?Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing discussion there are clear policy when the tags should be removed.Please follow the policy.--Shrike (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus for such tags, they can be removed. Wikieditor19920 was told this by an admin in another such incidence. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The policy here is absolutely black-and-white clear that once a concern has been raised on the talk page, and a discussion is ongoing, consensus is required to remove the tag. Objective Any admin who would made such a claim is wrong, nor do I recall such an interaction. Selfstudier is correct that you are perfectly allowed to disagree with me and any other editor. You can do so by posting your positions here on the talk page, not by unilaterally removing or moving the tag, which serves to provide notice of an ongoing discussion. Further attempts to alter the tag while there is an active discussion going on will be treated as disruptive editing. Learn to WP:AGF and acknowledge and respond to other editors' valid arguments rather than dismissing them outright. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still am waiting to hear any coherent argument from you that does not involve your endlessly repeating that your solitary NYT source outweighs all of the scholarly and other RS presented. An argument as to why we should change an article that has been stable for years just because you have dug up an article from the NYT that you only came up with when you failed to get anyone to accept your POV editing. This is not the first article where you are doing this, you adopted the same approach at State of Palestine and Trump peace plan, throwing a hissy fit when not able to push your POV through and then tagging in a fit of pique. If you do not present a valid argument or start an RFC that clearly states what it is you are trying to include in the article, I or someone else will be removing your tag which is serving no purpose whatsoever at this point other than to prolong this futile discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed direct assertions of broken ceasefire which from the above discussion seemed to be the primary concern. Does this address the tag? -- GreenC

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

There are other opinions:

  • "[IDF] officials said that the initial army raid was a “pinpoint” operation aimed at thwarting a specific threat, and that Israel remained committed to the truce."[2]
  • Encyclopedia Britannica blames both sides: "the truce was threatened shortly thereafter as each accused the other of violations"
  • Amnesty International blames both sides: "The ceasefire effectively ended after six Palestinian militants were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza force on 4 November and a barrage of Palestinians rockets were launched on nearby towns and villages in the south of Israel."
  • Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict blames both sides: first 10 lines on page 256

We have three opinions: Israel is at fault (per current article). Israel is not at fault (per IDF). Both sides at fault (per above). -- GreenC 01:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged Section

I moved the most recent version of tag placed by Wikieditor to the section he is apparently concerned with. I say apparently because up and until now, there is still no clear explanation either of what the problem is or what the editor expects to be done about it. Therefore, editor is requested to explain here exactly what the problem is and what he would like done about said problem.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Who is to blame?

RfC Question: Should this edit stay? -- GreenC 16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous discussions: lengthy discussions above. -- GreenC 16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

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

    Baconi, Tareq (2018). Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-5036-0581-7. As domestic Palestinian talks faltered in late 2008, so did the ceasefire agreement with Israel. On November 4, in a dramatic escalation, Israel broke the ceasefire by raiding the Gaza Strip, citing preemptive self-defense against an attack tunnel that Hamas was allegedly building to capture Israeli soldiers. Hamas denied these accusations, noting that its tunnels were being built for defensive or economic purposes. It responded with a barrage of rockets over the border. This skirmish, although brief, demonstrated Israel's desire to end the ceasefire, as Hamas had anticipated. For its part, the movement sought the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Israel had not only failed to sufficiently relax the blockade, a key condition of the truce, but had evidently continued incursions into Gaza. This was even though Hamas had been remarkably effective, as Israeli security officials openly admitted, in enforcing the truce from the Gaza front.

    Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 119-120. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launched a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'

    We should, as with all articles, follow the balance of sources, not report "some say the Earth is flat" in the name of seeking some false balance. nableezy - 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Comment RFC is malformed/undue since no-one has until now attempted to remove the edit that has been made although it is subject of a discussion. Suggest editor close this RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation in policy to remove edit to start a RFC --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about this RfC is "malformed," it addresses a content issue in the article and offers a proposal.Selfstudier Has repeatedly removed the dispute tag, claiming doing so was appropriate because there was "no RfC" on this page and on their talk page. Now SS views the RfC as inappropriate. Ridiculous, and disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RFC is malformed/undue as its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC can't be "undue," any editor is entitled to make a content proposal via this method. Bickering over form is uncalled for; the RfC provides a brief and neutral summary. If you have specific objections to the proposal, you are free to articulate those here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Historical Bakckground' is a good faith attempt to provide a brief summary of events and place them into context so new editors can quickly come up to speed and decide if they want to participate before diving into the lengthy and complex article and comment sections above. The RfC encourages readers to do that. -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its still not neutral, read wp:rfc, and I said nothing about Undue, I said its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to quote your comment above? If you have a suggestion for GreenC as to how the wording might be revised, that would be more helpful than calling it generally malformed/undue. IMO, GreenC did a perfectly fine job with this summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, take out any and all commentary and just ask the question (as wp:rfc instructs).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A brief, neutral summary is appropriate. See WP:RFC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a difference between "breaking the ceasefire" which both sides did from day one and an event leading to the "breakdown of the ceasefire" which is what occurred on 4 November. The oft mentioned solitary NYT article refers to a break of the ceasefire after November 4 but there were many of these (see the UN report) and these breaches only became serious after November 4, the de facto end of the ceasefire even if it nominally still had time to run. This RFC is trying to paint a different picture by its very wording.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cease fire is an agreement, not a literal lack of fire. An agreement is broken according to the opinions of participants, observers, historians, journalists and legal experts ie. it is a subjective opinion. Commonly, cease fires are a matter of dispute. -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as straightforward a matter as there can be. Reliable sources have expressed multiple views on the matter. Attribution is required per WP:V. Policy requires changes to the text in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment An additional issue is the linking of Cast Lead to the end of the ceasefire. Cast Lead need not have been launched merely because of the breakdown in the ceasefire, in fact it likely wasn't launched because of that or at least not solely because of that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your opinion, Should this edit stay? -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, your RFC wording wrongly links the 2 things together, that's now 3 reasons why you should start over with this RFC. I am not going to vote this RFC because it's a wrong RFC for the reasons I have given.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? The RfC is narrowly focused on the wording surrounding the ceasefire arrangement. It does not address subsequent military operations following the end of the ceasefire. Stop jumbling the issues. The proposal here is clearly stated; if you have views on it, feel free to express them and cast a vote. Your endless quibbling over non-existent form issues and trying to conflate issues not raised in the RfC is tiresome. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Alternatively, why are we having an RFC that doesn't address your tag?Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having an RfC precede the edit is actually the diplomatic way to do things. We also don't hold RfCs on whether to apply tags; we hold RfCs on substantive content disputes, apply the tag to indicate an ongoing discussion, and remove the tag once it's resolved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC isn't preceding the edit, the edit is already in the article and the proposer is asking whether it should stay. I didn't suggest we should have an RFC on whether to apply tags, I asked whether this RFC addresses the issues you raised by your tag and if it does not then why are we having this RFC?Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_War_%282008%E2%80%9309%29&type=revision&diff=947151395&oldid=947151136

Leave a Reply