Talk:2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire

Pro-Israeli POV

I have removed the Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel section as it has no link to this page at all, and if anything is only further promoting a Pro-Israeli view on the situation by insinuating that Palestine were the only ones that attacked.

I've also removed the image of the Qassam rockets and the Israeli Protestor. It's either that, or I start posting images of White phosphorus burning into Palestinians and Gazans crying at the destruction. There is a written section on Gilad and another entire page on him, posting images which are 30% Israeli flag with the statement 'terrorist' (What definition of terrorist? Wouldn't the USA would be counted as one too?, etc.) have no place in this page about a ceasefire. Please, try to keep a NPOV. Waffleswaffles (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. You removed referenced information, caused some potential POV problems ("however"), and removed related media. You can expand the article if you wish to contribute info on the wrongdoings of Israel. But your edits raised too many issues.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked your edit, and you seem to be confused in thinking I wrote that paragraph on Hamas and the word "however". In fact, I agree that the word 'however' should not be there, but the rest of your edit was not needed at all. It looks drastically in favour of Israel. The paragraph is to do with Hamas' doings, not Israel's. The only thing I did was remove the image of Gilad and the Qassam rockets (And the Palestinian Rocket attacks which I see now should stay there), because they are absolutely irrelevant. I reverted your paragraph and instead removed "however". I'm waiting for you to explain why you brought back the images though. Waffleswaffles (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is 'the breaking of the ceasefire' camouflaged under the quaintly deflective "Dissolution"? That's like an article on E=MC² being described under 'Einstein's Funeral'. Along with the terms of the ceasefire and the non-/compliance by the two parties, the 'Breaking' is part of the top-3 components. The entire flavour of this article has the effect of diluting Hamas' observance of the ceasefire, and burying Israels two violations thereof under a wealth of relative inconsequentials. I support the POV flag staying until cause-and-effect is reflected with appropriate balance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be no reason offered for the use of this deflective term. I am calling this spade a shovel and renaming the sub-section "Breaking of the Ceasefire and aftermath". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Having rethought the need to keep the breaking of the ceasefire as an obviously important section, I changed my view and have separated it from the aftermath so as to avoid confusion between cause and effect. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There is some blatant own research in the third-last paragraph under 'Security Agreements'. I intend to trim this to leave only portions that are RS or are also not . Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In the text of the section "Breaking of the Ceasefire" a citation is made to Dr Robert Pastor using the word "allegation". This is not contained in the citation provided, which exclusively uses the verb 'said' or 'according to'. I have edited out this POV and reflected the actual reference wording. In addition the sequence of events between the 4 November Israeli invasion and the increase in Hamas rocket attacks, i.e. the cause-and-effect - is disturbingly and unnecessarily vague, and additionally uses a 'dead link' in support. I changed the sentence to reflect an active link, and to clarify that the Israeli attack came first. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

fix ups

did some cleaning up, fixed the intro a little, fixed see also, and one WTA formulation, theres plenty more but this it for nao. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an outside editior to rank this page for importance? I believe that this would be a "low", but I'm a biased party involved in the creation of this article. The Squicks (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Charts/photographs in this article

This article contains seven charts/photographs:

• 1) Photo of Gaza rocket fired toward Israel
• 2) Chart of annual rocket attacks from Gaza toward Israel from 2001-2008
• 3) Chart of monthly rocket attacks from Gaza toward Israel in 2008
• 4) Monthly death toll chart for both Gaza and Israel in 2008
• 5) Photo of Pro-Israeli demonstration in Berlin
• 6) Photo of Israeli child maimed by Gazan rocket
• 7) Photograph of Gazan Qassam rocket remnants in Sderot

This choice of charts/photographs is problematic because six of the seven document Gazan violence toward Israel, or, in the case of (5), are simply pro-Israeli. Only (4) above can be considered neutral, and according to this death toll chart, more Gazans than Israelis were killed during the time period covered in this article.

Some other, specific problems: The Berlin demo happened after the expiration of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire and so is outside the scope of this article; the maimed child photo is emotive; the photo of rocket remnants is from Sderot's collection dating back to October 2000, some eight years before the ceasefire.

Suggest the article's charts/photographs be fixed to comply with Wikipedia policies, namely neutral point of view and undue weight. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I assume either few editors are watching this article or those that are don't see a neutral point of view and undue weight problem with the current photographs/charts? Welcome any response. RomaC (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article as is has a clear pro-Israel POV, and not only because of the charts posted. There must be more of an effort to represent both parties equally. For example, there is mention of "terrorists" in Gaza, but no mention of the "concentration camps" enforced by Israel, or something else of the like. Inflammatory, anti-Palestinian quotes should be removed, or additional quotes should be sourced and added which represent the opposing perspective. Cherry-picked quotes, while they may be verbatim, do not help create a neutral article. Ontogeny (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Pro-Israel-Demo in Berlin 8.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pro-Israel-Demo in Berlin 8.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead inadequacies

The lead has unassigned attributes such as 'not fully', 'some', 'decrease' and 'not completely'. The fact that this wording is used in the cited NYT piece is not a justification. It also contains text that is not supported by the citation, such as 'Hamas hoped' and 'Israel hoped'. It fails to mention the obligations under the agreement. I suggest that the summary sub-section - "2008 Hamas-Israeli ceasefire" - of the article Gaza–Israel conflict addresses these shortcomings and should be used here. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been no responses or objections, I will replace the lead with the more informative text from Gaza–Israel conflict Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Background inadequacies

1. The text "Hamas has not changed its skin. These are bloodthirsty and despicable terrorists who even today are doing all they can to harm Israeli civilians" sounds like a POV on the part of Olmert. My n000bish understanding is that, even if quotes are an accurate reflection of a source, if they are POVs they are not allowed. Am I correct?
2. The text "Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh described the proposed period in Arabic as a Tahdia, meaning a temporary moment of calm and not a formal cease-fire.[21]" is a quotation from March 2008. The article makes no link that it refers to the same ceasefire terms that were accepted by both parties in June 2008. Delete?
3. The final paragraph is not part of the Background; it relates reactions to the agreement. In addition the second sentence is not supported by the offered citation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Any comment from anyone soon? If not the texts go. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Since there have been no objections, I have started by removing Olmert's POV statements. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire issues - Security agreements

1. The same unassigned attributes as mentioned in Talk: 'Lead Inadequacies' are present here. Suggest the replacement text as for the Lead
2. Paragraph 2 is a repetition
3. Much of this subsection had nothing to do with its title
4. Paragraph 8 also contains the unassigned attributes 'several'; this can be quantified.
5. The final sentence of paragraph 8 makes no sense. Israel broke the 'lull'/ceasefire on November 4, so the November rocket statistics have no relation to Hamas' achievements.
6. If the final paragraph is pertinent, it opens the way for a 'tit-for-tat' production of Israel's non-incarceration of soldiers guilty of violations of the Rules of War and the Geneva conventions. I therefore suggest this is hopelessly one-sided, and in fact no warranted for inclusion.

Any comment from anyone soon? If not the texts go. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) On further reflection, the biggest problem with the section "Ceasefire Issues" is that it is a random mix across three sub-sections of pre-agreement problems (West Bank or not; exclusions (Shalit release or not)), pre-November 4 violations of the ceasefire agreement by Gaza elements and by Israel, degree of compliance by Hamas with the terms, degree of compliance by Israel, unwarranted emphasis on Shalit (equal in text-space to the blockade (non)easing, a specific term of the ceasefire), disjointed timeline sequence, duplication of the following section, and disruptive insertions of third party reactions. Both this section and the subsequent one need to be recategorised and rearranged, edited, referenced and generally tidied up.

My suggestion would be:

1. Everything to do with the reaching of the ceasefire terms, the exclusions and the actual terms themselves should go into one section
2. Everything to do with the ceasefire period prior to the major disruption on 4 November should be in its own section with sub-sections on a) Gazan (non-Hamas) compliance; b) Hamas compliance; c) Israel compliance
3. 4 November to 27 December lead-up events plus final breakdown of the ceasefire.

Constructive critique welcomed.Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of comment I intend (piece-by-piece) to dedraft the article along the following lines:

1. Background remains
2. Ceasefire Terms remains
3. New section - Ceasefire Progress - Compliances and Violations (this will include existing text, probably rearrange, but exclude repetitions and off-topic pieces, and scrupulously include all violations while making any cause-and-effect chains clear). References may include those from biased web sites in line with Wiki policy of acceptance in WP:BIASED
4. Prelude to Operation Cast Lead [basically this section will cover the period from 4 November to the launching of Operation Cast Lead]

Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

POV

I've done some small edits to the introduction, but more cleanup is necessary. The opening paragraph rather blatantly does not maintain a neutral point of view. Also, the reference "Dr. David Morrison (2 March 2010). "The Israel-Hamas ceasefire of 19 June to 4 Nov. 2008" is not a WP:RS and needs to be removed. mikeman67 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your deletions require discussion. Please do so before making them. I am quite willing to defend my position and also to admit shortcomings. I am going to revert your deletions to give us an opportunity to discuss specifics here. Let us start with the only factual justification that you provided: "Dr David Morrison is not WP:RS". Please support your contention.

In anticipation I provide my defence of using him: He has been considered worthy enough to have his articles published in The Irish Times, The Irish Examiner and The Village Magazine. The Irish Times has also published pieces by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Morrison's current focus is on the Ukraine so he is not uni-dimensional or fixated as a professional. George Galloway MP has said of David Morrison: “In my opinion, he’s the best researcher working in Britain today." He may not be in the same sector of the political compass as you, but that does not make him un-WP:RSYour turn.

Nonetheless, I am willing to swap out that reference for another if it specifically pleases you, but I would prefer not to, since it would be an insult to Dr Morrison.

I would be particularly interested in your reason for reverting the statements by Mark Regev, since he is so copiously quoted in similar style in his defence of Israel. Are we to throw all of his statements out of Wiki? Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

re Erictheenquirer: "I am willing to [...] if it specifically pleases you" - no, no way. Not to please an editor. -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[1] - unless someone can prove that Mark Regev is the one not reliable. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mikeman67 you are still expected to respond to this sub-topic (you already specified in your original post here). So: what about the Dr David Morrison reference? -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Mikeman67 The opening paragraph rather blatantly does not maintain a neutral point of view. Apart from the Morrison comment (discussed above), you should be specific about this claim. Without specification, the POV tag is to be removed (OIW, what are we supposed to discuss?). -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DePiep Erictheenquirer - I get that I'm wading into an explosive topic here, but the opening paragraphs seem to take the position that Israel violated the ceasefire and Hamas did not as if this is an undisputed fact. Here are some examples:

• Why is the ceasefire referred to by an Arabic name "Tahdia" and not a Hebrew one? Was it the position of both parties to the agreement that the ceasefire was a Tahdia or did an editor decide that on their own?
• The paragraph refers to a Palestinian violation of the ceasefire as a "shaky start", while the later references to Israel's actions are stated as a failure on Israel's part
• The piece from Dr. David Morrison is published by the Ireland-Palestine Alliance. That's clearly not a neutral source and should not be used in this article whatsoever. The piece is pretty clearly WP:BIASED and openly argumentative against Israel. There are certainly many, many sources that can be quoted that aren't from the Muslim Brotherhood's website, which also isn't reliable and is used as a source in this article. I'm not sure how George Galloway liking someone means they're neutral in any way.
• Citing from a Wikileak source isn't a reflection of official policy of Israel. If you think it belongs in the article, it needs to be identified as a leak.
• "Israel broke the ceasefire" - again, you're presenting a position and writing it as if it is a fact. In the article that's cited, Israel denies that it broke the ceasefire. This needs to be reflected in the article.

I take it from your edit history Erictheenquirer you are not a fan of Israel. That doesn't mean you can't edit these pages. But you need to be aware that the point of the project is to present information without editorializing. I tried to edit the page in a good faith attempt at improving it, so that it would have bare facts alone. If you don't like my edits, please explain why. mikeman67 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I take it from your edit history Erictheenquirer you are not a fan of Israel you write. I suggest you remove or strike that right now. Your impression is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "argument." I was commenting on the fact that it appears to me that Eric's made repeated edits on this page and other pages that carry a rather uniformly anti-Israel WP:POV. mikeman67 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you not understand from what you wrote yourself? And now again you are writing opinions not arguments. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my opinion, from looking at his edit history, is that he's not a fan of Israel. That's why I wrote "I take it you are not a fan of Israel." I then said he should not editorialize. I understand what I wrote. What I don't understand is why you're claiming that's some sort of argument. The only arguments I made were the 5 different points on why I thought the POV tag was warranted. I then separately pointed out the importance of not editorializing. I really don't understand what you're objecting to, it's certainly appropriate to call attention to biased editors. mikeman67 (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the Regev piece, he certainly confirmed that Hamas had not fired any missiles and yes Israel did break the ceasefire because they attacked Gaza first,that is how a ceasefire is broken,when you attack someone else first.I do not agree that the piece is POV, it is just telling the truth as confirmed by the Israeli spokesman.GGranddad (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is my democratic right to try to unwind distortions of historical fact. My browsings over 10+ years seem to bring me back to Israel-Palestine, so I decided to concentrate there, rather than become less factually literate about more things. But I am not sure why I need to explain my democratic preferences to you. I do not intend to discuss your personal choices. My last word on this subject - stick to the facts and not to the poster is my motto. So let's do that, OK? Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67:As counterpoint to the above, let us look at your recent activity. On 26 August this started off when you made a deletion, the 'Talk' justification for which was a series of claims of POV and not WP:RS, without giving factual support. In the process you also deleted the Regev acknowledgement with zero justification. Logically you were reverted. You subsequently admitted that you did so on an explosive topic. You then asked about the following:

1. The use of Tahdia (not part of your deletion). Answ: I presume the original poster put it there to make the subtle point that it was a 'lull' valid only for 6 months. If you want the Hebrew word inserted, please feel free.
2. The start of ceasefires is often 'shaky' (e.g. see 1981 Lebanon ceasefire), especially when multiple parties are involved. Hamas was not involved in these attacks - admitted to by Regev. Ah .... Regev again.
3. If Dr Morrison is not WP:RS because his piece was published by the Ireland-Palestine Alliance, would you be consistent in also recommending that pro-Israeli commentaries published under the auspices of AIPAC, the Anti Defamation League, the Jewish Defense Organisation, or a myriad of similar organisations should likewise be expunged from Wiki?
4. Regarding your claim that it is NOT a fact that Israel broke the ceasefire, the quoted reference had the following title - "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen". So, yes, I presented this conclusion by a respected main-stream British newspaper as a fact. Perhaps I also need to add this [[2]] But regarding your defense that the same article - [[3]] - contained a statement by an Israeli military source that it had in fact not broken the ceasefire, provides a classic example of why I insist on the respect for historical facts, the real statement in fact being - "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire". If you want I can add that the Israeli military made a statement about its intent, but that seems just so obviously POV.

I repeat, please address the issues in Talk before deleting. I would make the same plea @Shrike: Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC) @Shrike:Shrike, for the second time, and notwithstanding the above request, you made the same revert, again without any Talk discussion. In addition while claiming (in the edit summary) justification that "using a Muslim Brotherhood web site is "Push POV"" without further elaboration or support, you also deleted material containing 4 other references. With these destructive tactics you are starting and edit war and spurning constructive discussion. Please stop. I have reverted you deletion based on zero justification for the entirety of your delete. Nonetheless I will alter the earliest text in your deletion and adopt that (see below).Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the edits made to the article. You are editorializing the page. It's essential that Wikipedia pages are presented from a neutral point of view. This is one of the WP:5 pillars of the project. This is a controversial topic and you need to be very careful with how it's presented. You are repeatedly using non-mainstream sources to push your opinion of the conflict. The edits made here were to present information that is purely factual. If you continue to make edits and reversions without good faith, I'll have to report you to arbitration. I will give you some examples of the problems with your edits.

• 1) "Israel's obligation was to cease attacks on Gaza and once the ceasefire held, to gradually begin to ease its punishing blockade of Gaza." Punishing blockade is editorializing and must be avoided. It's not factual, it's an opinion.
• 2) Carter Center - this is a WP:BIASED source. The Carter Center has a clear position on the conflict and their research reflects that. There is no reason to use a source like that in this article, there are literally thousands of articles from non-biased organizations available.
• 3) "unrelated to Hamas" - First of all, the ceasefire agreement required an ending of all rockets from Gaza, not even those "unrelated to Hamas." Second of all, this is not a factual statement. It is an assertion. Please do not state this as a fact, considering it is essentially unprovable.
• 4) "cumulating" - this is just poor English. You may have meant culminating, but that wouldn't make much sense either.
• 5) IHT article - you restored the IHT article despite the fact that it is no longer a working link. I do not understand why you would revert something that improved the sourcing on this article. At the very least you could selectively edit it. Reverts are to be avoided if at all possible.
• 6) Dr. David Morrison is not a reliable source. As to your question whether I would say the same for the random group of organizations you listed, depending on the context, probably yes. It would probably depend on the piece and how the information is used. This is an article entitled "The peaceful alternative to “Operation Cast Lead” that Israel rejected". That is blatantly, on its face, a biased source. Many other headlines in that article are harsh criticisms of Israel. There is simply no justification for using that in this article. Please find articles from a reputable news organization.
• 7) Mark Regev - please stop trying to use one out of context interview by Mark Regev as a justification for everything you are putting in the article. Again, a Noam Chomsky website is not appropriate for this page.
• 8) "Israel broke the ceasefire" - this is an opinion stated as a fact. If someone believes this, then source it to the group or person who believes it. Do not state it as a fact.

I could go on for the rest of the article but I hope you get the point. Please try your best to not editorialize, and stop reverting edits on the page. If you have problems with how the introduction now is, post here and we can discuss them. mikeman67 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67:When contributors make significant deletions without any discussion in Talk, I believe that I am justified in reverting them for that. I believe that it is fully in line with Wiki protocol – no discussion on ‘Talk’ = no right to remain. You claim the contrary, but you add that it is "editorialising". If you feel inclined to report me for arbitration for such reversals, I will welcome it – in fact I URGE you to do so - the sooner the better so that we can be rid of these baseless disruptions. You reverted to Shrike’s position, one that was unfounded on any discussion. I find that a noteworthy declaration of your position. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67: Now let us look in detail at your motivations for your latest revert and your accusation that I “editorialise”:

1. Quote Mikeman67 : "Israel's obligation was to cease attacks on Gaza and once the ceasefire held, to gradually begin to ease its punishing blockade of Gaza." Punishing blockade is editorializing and must be avoided. It's not factual, it's an opinion.

Response -I refute your claim as follows: The citation provided in support of this sentence will show that my text was taken directly from The Guardian. Or are you suggesting that this respected mainstream British newspaper was editorialising in stating ‘punishing’, notwithstanding the enormous amount of data published in full support of that adjective by UNRWA, OCHAO, various human rights NGOs and a host of other mainstream Western news sources and analysts. Am I now supposed to provide supporting citations for The Guardian’s view also. I find this ‘over-the-top’, but if arbitration requires me to bloat the references in such a way, I have a plethora of citations.

1. Quote Mikeman67 : "Carter Center - this is a WP:BIASED source.”

Response: Says who? Is the Carter any more biased than the Jerusalem post or the Jewish Virtuqal Library, or …. Rejected for being classic POV.

1. Quote Mikeman67 : “"unrelated to Hamas" - First of all, the ceasefire agreement required an ending of all rockets from Gaza, not even those "unrelated to Hamas."

Response: Obviously Hamas had to make efforts to bring other factions into line. You appear to forget that it was Fatah whose militia were policing Gaza at the time. See the issue? Yet even so, after a few weeks Hamas managed to do exactly that. Regarding your ‘secondly’, this is the second time in three points that you appear to have failed to read the citation of the Library of the House of Commons that I presented in support. Had you done so, you would have seen (on page 6) the following related to the rocket attacks on Israel (without any omissions by me of stated examples): “Army of Islam” – that is not Hamas; “Islamic Jihad” – that is not Hamas. In fact nowhere is Hamas cited as being the responsible party. You will also have seen an even longer list of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

1. To cumulate: Merrian-Webster – “to gather “; “to combine into one”
2. Accepted: I will fix that.
3. Quote Mikeman67 : “Dr. David Morrison is not a reliable source”. Says who? Pure POV – rejected.
4. Quote Mikeman67 : “Mark Regev - please stop trying to use one out of context interview by Mark Regev”.

Response: Where did you show with supporting references that the Regev statement was used out of context? Pure POV.

Quote Mikeman67 : “Again, a Noam Chomsky website is not appropriate for this page”

Response: Where are your WP:RS sources to refute the Independent or the New York Times (‘Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive’) in praise of Chomsky? Sorry – this is just more POV.

1. Quote Mikeman67 : “"Israel broke the ceasefire" - this is an opinion stated as a fact. If someone believes this, then source it to the group or person who believes it. Do not state it as a fact.”

Response: I provided two sources both of which supported this conclusion. You provided a POV. QED.

In fact I believe it is in both of our interests for you to report me for arbitration.

Signature Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you have no further defence of your unsubstantiated claims of unreliability, or to your oversight of precise statements in the provided citations that Israel indeed broke the ceasefire (thus rendering your claim of 'editorialising' refuted), I will post a WP:3O. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67: I alluded earlier to the fact that there are citations not currently on offer that further support my text and refute your claims that they are simply POV opinions. However, without another "undo" by me which could further inflame the situation, I cannot offer them in the current text. They include:

1. That the blockade had been devastating/punishing to Gaza - PCHR weekly report 5 November 2014 [[4]]; August 2008 Amnesty International [[5]]; British House of Commons www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04946.pdf
2. That Hamas did not fire rockets at Israel from the start of the ceasefire until 4 November 2008 and in fact took steps to prevent other armed groups from doing so: "We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the June 19 ceasefire" - House of Commons Library www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04946.pdf; "For the first five months, the cease-fire held relatively well. Some rockets were fired into Israel, but most were attributed to non-Hamas militant groups, and, progressively, Hamas appeared increasingly able and willing to suppress even these attacks" - Library of Congress - [[6]]; Council on Foreign Relations: "Hamas stopped the rockets, although it took them a couple of weeks, and a few after that came from rogue elements" [[7]]; Ray Hanania (award-winning columnist) - "Hamas was careful" [[8]]; "Hamas has on several occasions effectively prevented other armed groups from firing rockets" - [[9]]; "On June 29, a spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah-afiliated armed group, was arrested after the group claimed responsibility for launching two rockets into Israel from Gaza" - [[10]]
3. That is was Israel that broke the ceasefire (on 4 November 2008): In addition to the (in)famous Mark Regev interview (spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister) [[11]]in which he admitted (perfectly in context as the interview video shows) that Hamas had not fired any rockets since the start of the June 2008 ceasefire, we have the following in full support of this reference: From The Guardian (reference already provided) - "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen"; "Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel" - [[12]]; Defense Minister Ehud Barak: "the recent waves of rocket attacks are a result of our operations" (20 November 2008) - [[13]]; "On Nov. 4, Israel’s military entered deep into the Gaza Strip killing at least six members of Hamas, which eventually ended the already fragile cease-fire" - [[14]]

In addition a WP:RS citation that Israel's breaking of the ceasefire on 4 November 2008 was to prevent a tunnel being used for offensive purposes. All we have is an IDF claim, and if Palestinian-supportive organisations and analysts are not WP:RS, then the IDF certainly is not, and neither are the spokesman for the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Defense, etc. Take your choice, but in the end we will have a level playing-field - either similar sources for both sides or none from either side. This is a major weakness with all of the Wiki Palestinian-Israeli pages. Erictheenquirer (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is of course a well known fact that Hamas did not fire rockets during the 2008 ceasefire and Israel broke the ceasefire on Nov 4th. However, some of the sources currently in the article are not WP:RS. There are indeed better sources, some of whom Erictheenquirer has given above. Human Rights Watch and others should be used, instead of "Ireland-Palestine alliance" or Carter Center, which are fine for information, not fine for use on Wikipedia. A lot of the sources Erictheenquirer has given do not directly address the point made. Since the basic argument is a well-documented fact, it should not be hard to find good sources for this. One source is here, which talks about just October and events leading up to the Nov 4th incident. It is quoted in length in the main article. As far as possible, contentious things should be attributed. Hope this helps. Kingsindian (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Many sincere thanks for that. Unfortunately I do not have access to JSTOR, but will check the quoted text in the main section. Perhaps you can help me further re RS sources: How come the Carter Centre is not WP:RS? Is there a reason-based list of Non-Reliable Sources that one can consult? If not then the conclusion that a site is non-RS becomes POV, right? Just checking. Same applies for Chomsky. Plus, if a praised researcher's work becomes non-RS because the particular piece is published under the auspices of the Ireland-Palestine association, are all writers in AIPAC (and similar) publications on the ME automatically non-RS regarding Israel and Palestine? How can I ascertain that statements by IDF members and those of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are treated equally; Netanyahu versus Meshaal, etc. Still encountering n000bie stumbles and uncertain issues, hence the questions. Once again, many thanks for the 'firm' reference. I will add it and then revert the 'undo'.Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: To your questions:

• Statements by advocacy groups like Carter Center and Human Rights Watch can be used on Wikipedia, if they are serious, but must be attributed. It is important to also include contrary sources for what they say. If the IDF denies it and it is relevant and reliably sourced, include it with attribution and appropriate weight and let the reader make up their mind.
• For Chomsky, he is an important critic, but not an "original research" scholar; he usually cites other work for his statements, just like Wikipedia (a very good practice, not engaging in WP:OR in real life). See the references and find the original citations.
• Including opposing view does not mean one has to give them equal weight per WP:NPOV. Opposing views must be given due weight. If some view is a minority, it must be made clear.
• Questions about reliability of sources can be addressed at WP:RSN. Kingsindian (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Again, many thanks. I have a remaining problem - "minority" as a judgement criterium for appropriate weight. It depends on your cultural origin. Example: Netanyahu opinions are almost certainly 'majority' in the Western media; Meshaal's are a 'minority'. So what? They are leaders on an equal footing in the Hamas-Israel conflicts. I suspect (POV) that the reverse is true in the Palestinian/Syrian/Iranian press. The 'tyranny of the (subjective) majority' can quickly become a negative tool. I check the WP:RSN for the Carter Center and found only positive comments. Can I presume that I can therefore ignore Mikeman67's claim that the Center is unreliable as not being founded? Likewise I found that, given the publication of his political commentaries by a range of publishers, Chomsky is definitely WP:RS. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Weight is decided based on consensus; there is no other perfect mechanism on Wikipedia. Give arguments, people will evaluate them and see what weight should be given. As for Carter Center, I haven't checked the archives of WP:RSN; if they are used, it should be attributed. Kingsindian (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Erictheenquirer - I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of how sources and attributions are used on Wikipedia. Just to refer to one specific point of yours, you said I forgot "it was Fatah whose militia were policing Gaza at the time. See the issue?" Please see Battle of Gaza (2007). Fatah was not in control of Gaza in 2008. I think the bigger issue here is that you are continually inserting your own opinion, cited to non-neutral sources that are authoritative to you on the topic. It's possible Morrison and Chomsky are correct in their arguments. But that's besides the point. This is an encyclopedia, not the op-ed section of a newspaper. As to Kingsindian's point, is it certainly not "a well known fact" that Israel violated the ceasefire, and of course not certain enough for an encyclopedia to write it as such. For example, read the the NY Times account of the 2008 raid, and you'll see how a typical news report does not render judgement on this question: [15]. If you wish to write a conclusion, you'll need to attribute that to the source that claims it, as well as a responding source. Finally, please stop telling me that the IDF's spokesperson/PMO/random pro-Israel site is not a reliable source. I would never write a WP article sourced there. If we were to cite those sources, I of course agree that the body of the text should say the source of those statements, and not merely as the source for a supposed fact. But you did not do the same when you quoted from a Muslim Brotherhood website without saying it was a Muslim Brotherhood claim. mikeman67 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67: If you read my reply to Erictheenquirer, I made the same point as you, style notwithstanding. Good sources should be used. Israeli claims should be given their due weight. The statement about "well-known fact" happens to be correct, but it is beside the point here. I only used it on the talk page. I did not mean to, or say, that it should be stated like that in the article.

The NYT article says in the headline "Israeli Strike Is First in Gaza Since Start of Cease-Fire". Not sure why you are citing it in opposition to my claim, when it says exactly what I said. I have not provided any sources for the "well-known fact", because I am informally discussing on the talk page. If I edited the article about this point, I would certainly give documentation. Hope this helps. Kingsindian (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the headline to the article I posted. There's obviously no dispute that an Israeli strike took place in Gaza, or that this one was the first since the ceasefire. I think you may be missing the distinction here. The dispute is whether this is a violation of the ceasefire. It's the same issue with rocket fire from Gaza into Israel in the first few weeks after the ceasefire is signed. There's no dispute that rocket fire from Gaza took place. The dispute between the parties is whether these two events were violations of the ceasefire. The article, as edited by Erictheenquirer took the position that only one of these actions was a ceasefire violation, and the other was not. The NYT article doesn't state as fact whether the ceasefire was breached, as you concluded. I wasn't asking for sources from you, I was explaining how the body of text in a WP article requires a source for an assertion like that (e.g., "Hamas leaders said that..." etc.). mikeman67 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeman67:I have decided that we are wasting time arguing about the lead, when the detail of the article goes unaddressed. Once that detail adequately reflects both sides, I believe it will be a relatively simple matter to cobble together a lead. Regarding your points

• Indeed I made a mistake confusing the Nov 2005 ceasefire with the June 2008 one. I will make sure not to submit text reflecting that error. It has nothing to do with the foundation of our discussion.
• I believe it will be an easy matter to establish that Hamas did not fire a single rocket during the period up to November 4th, hence that organisation complied with the ceasefire. We might have to cross swords if you continue to claim that the Regev interview is not documentation of this fact.
• It will also be relatively easy to demonstrate that the (comparatively few) rockets that were fired (22 I seem to recall) were fired by organisations who were not a party to the agreement. Are these violations by Hamas, when Hamas showed by actions that (after about 3 weeks) it was quite capable of policing the aggression
• I believe it will also be possible to show that on various occasions before November 4th Israel violated the ceasefire with gunfire at fishing vessels, incursions/firing into Gaza, assassinations in Gaza, with corresponding retaliations from non-Hamas factions plus unprovoked violations by them. The Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 139–168 that Kingsindian (talk · contribs) so generously provided, documents all of this clearly and will be reflected in the main text of the article.
• Regarding whether Israel broke the ceasefire on 4 November, I find it almost laughable to have to justify that a cross-border incursion and the killing of 6 Gazans was not exactly that. Imagine Hamas claiming that an incursion into Israel and the death of a half-dozen Israelis was not a CS violation. But I will nonetheless do so, providing the Israeli interpretation, but naturally also providing the Guardian and other respected commentaries that the ceasefire had indeed been broken by Israel.
• If Mikeman67 reverts claiming that I may not use non-neutral sources (as he has repeatedly claimed above to be a Wiki requirement) I will refer it for 3O since the Wiki protocol clearly indicates the contrary - see [16] - specifically "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Here comes a n0000b question: - "How can I propose revised 'main' text without actually editing the article, as a basis for discussion? In my Sandbox? Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: You can simply write it here, appropriately marked. Or you can use WP:Drafts. Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Many thanks, KI. It will take a while to even out the playing field in this and related articles. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire Issues - Gilad Shalit

The Shalit issue was specifically not included in the June 2008 Ceasefire Agreement. What is this sub-section doing under this topic, other than to state the exclusion? It goes way beyond the just that. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the final paragraph is not supported by the offered citation - "Ha'aretz has reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert privately considers his government's decision to link Shalit's release with the cease-fire to be a mistake, even though he has not said so publicly.[43]" In fact the Haaretz article makes it clear that the Shalit issue was a point of negotiation. I have therefore removed the sentence. Without it, the following sentence has no relation to the page topic, and as a result that too was removed.

The only Shalit relevance to the topic remaining is that his release was NOT included in the ceasefire as shown by an earlier citation. I therefore restate my query as to its relevance at all in this article. Erictheenquirer (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the section "Ceasefire Terms", clarifying that the release of Shalit was not part of the agreement, that that the need for "movement" on this issue was required. With this all that remains is to document whether such talks did in fact take place. Once this is done, the the Gilad Shalit section should be removed as being redundant and/or out-of-topic. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I notice that you quoted Palestine Information center for some of the paragraph. I am afraid that does not qualify as WP:RS. Since it is quoting Israeli analysts in Hebrew press, in principle, it should be possible to track down those sources. Unfortunately, I cannot read Hebrew, but perhaps some Google searches might help in tracking down the sources. Kingsindian (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Many thanks again for your assistance, KI. Could you explain why the quoting of Israeli analysts in an English article is not WP:RS? Is it the "second-hand nature" where the original would be required? That seems quite harsh where non-English sources are required - how would we quote Biblical text under that rule? Nonetheless I will try to find alternative sources, but would nonetheless like a clarification. TY.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that I do not know anything about this website, the editorial policy etc. So I cannot rely on it to quote the text accurately. As to your analogy with Biblical text, that is appropriate. Use of Biblical text is not generally permitted. What is required is reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, like Biblical scholars, which interpret the Biblical text. The source need not be in English, but one must be able to rely on it for translations/interpretation. See the guidelines in WP:RS. If you can find the original Hebrew articles, there are some resources available here which will help you translate it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826203113/http://sadaka.ie/Files/Gaza_Ceasefire.pdf to http://sadaka.ie/Files/Gaza_Ceasefire.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/06/25/palestinian_rockets_threaten_truce/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3402910%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/06/25/palestinian_rockets_threaten_truce/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20World%20News
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524000000/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1229868837971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116020557/http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211 to http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C472856%2C00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Irregularities

I have encountered numerous cases of failed sources and have added 'citation needed', 'disputed' and 'failed verification' superscripts. I will leave them there for a while. The 'verification failed' text will be deleted after a few days. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC) The last phrase of the first paragraph of -Ceasefire Progress- "... in which every rocket and/or mortar attack would be punished in some way" is not present in the cited source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

יניב הורון (talk · contribs) has reverted based on Chomsky being an unreliable source. He provides no evidence, only his subjective POV. This is a common feature in his reverts. I went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where there are numerous discussions on Chomsky. A general conclusion is as in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159:

"Chomsky's been brought to this noticeboard many times, and the response has always been exactly the same as the one User:A Quest For Knowledge provided above; therefore, I could not point to a single "Wikipedia policy" that states "Chomsky has been ruled out as RS".

In fact there were numerous indications on the RS Noticeboard that Chomsky is more widely known for his commentaries on State terrorism and breaches of international codes and law than for his work on linguistics. Another points to his numerous books published by respected houses, mostly Henry Holt-Macmillan (one of the oldest publishers in the United States). Discussion revealed that he gains kudos for his "meticulous references and footnotes". In general he is considered to be RS when quoting historical happenings and record. He is also RS when stating opinions, but these need to be attributed. In the case in point, Chomsky was relating that during the period of the June 2008 ceasefire, Israel maintained its siege of Gaza; that on 4 November Israeli troops entered Gaza (this is an invasion by definition - see Collins: "Entry of a foreign army by force" - the IDF was not invited - it was not a decaffeinated "incident" - to be asked that an editor prove this, belongs to the "prove that the sky is blue" category); that the IDF killed 6 Hamas militants - all pertinent history with no opinion involved, and all in a single source. יניב הורון also totally ignored the fact that an accompanying source from Victoria Mason in a book by the highly reputable publishing house, Routledge, fully confirmed Chomsky's version. I therefore fail to see the basis for יניב הורון's non-RS claim.' other than that Chomsky has been repeatedly highly critical of Israel. That of course is zero reason to revert based on non-RS. Please explain, יניב הורון. If not, please cease this recurrent habit of 'fly-by' non-RS claims without justification. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

With lack of rebuttal by יניב הורון (talk · contribs) to show that Chomsky is unreliable regarding record and also opinion (the latter, if attributed) I am claiming WP:SILENCE Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)