Talk:Battle of Shuja'iyya

Untitled section

The wording of this piece as well as the lack of WP:RS (the only source cited claims that "residents say invading Israeli forces committed a new massacre") indicate that it is propaganda and not content for Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia of neutral facts. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A second source was added that is a quote from people with a conflict of interest claiming there was "a massacre" -- that in no way is a reliable source that there was one. Without any WP:RS this article should be Speedy Deleted. Please note that the author of this article was previously blocked for related posts and states clearly that he/she has a WP:COI on his/her User page. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The content is based on reliable sources according to certificates of Shuja'iyya citizens. No one is trying to mislead you. The article could be improved and it is very biased to not cover such incident of the current war in the region.--Uishaki (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what we consider a WP:RS. See WP:RS.... --Jersey92 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Jersey92's talk page...

What's the violation here?? Instead of delete it for trivial reasons cooperate with us on make it better.--Uishaki (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If I could improve it, I would have. But, all the sources I find are not WP:RS. Reading the sources like the Reuters piece reinforces this. There are people with conflicts of interest claiming there was a massacre, and nations/groups who did not see anything and who have clear COIs saying there was a massacre. There are also claims on line that the area that was attacked was being used in a military capacity and civilians were there as human shields and this is yet another act of violence in the Middle East, not a massacre. Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS nor is it a forum for discussions of perspectives. It is an encyclopedia. It needs facts that can be substantiated. There is a difference between a "battle" etc. and a "massacre." Without reliable sources an article with this title, about this un-verifiable topic, and possibly not notable considering how often this occurs in that area of the world, it appears to be propaganda and should not be in Wikipedia. Your user page and past block also indicate that you are not impartial on this topic and if an article were to be written after the facts are established it would best be written by someone else who is impartial. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You are completely wrong, this is purely a planned and premeditated massacre. I don't accept that you charges me for being biased. Think well before you publishes such posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StEoOuUQQw.--Uishaki (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS that this was planned and premeditated please include them in the article. The sources that I can find do not substantiate that claim. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article to a more factual title rather than one that reflects the claims of one side in the conflict. The article sill needs a lot of work if it is going to be retained in Wikipedia.--Jersey92 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not mind the title move if this is the will of the majority. I know that this article needs much work to become suitable.--Uishaki (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Uishaki, one has to be very vigilant in taking any info from Reliable Sources. Youtube is not an RS, although sometimes it's very useful to pass over information. The problem with it, is that you never know if the video is true or fake...especially with this specific conflict. One or two years ago, I would have watched this video exactly like you do (I'm guessing), feeling horrible for this outrageous crime or massacre. I started watching it that way. However, as now I'm more informed about how videos are faked...and thus while watching I've noticed little details, which made me understood that this video is fake. If you carefully watch it, you'll see that it's not possible that they took this video in Gaza...and at least some of the wounded people are faking it. 3 things I saw (one of the is the Hebrew t-shirt saying guide) together, destroyed the entire reliability of this video in my mind. --Feeling sorry to convey a bitter truth :( --Universal Life (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

IDF Tank

There was no mention whatsoever that an IDF tank was hit before a single IDF shot was fired and all deaths were the result of retaliation. Please make sure both sides are shown - Galatz (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about the tank, it gave the impression this was the start, but I can't find any sources claiming that. It might be notable, since it killed seven Israelis, about half their total losses. Ketil (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternate spellings

Just a note that I've seen the name of the neighborhood spelled ~20 different ways in the media. Anyone looking for sources should check out some of the variations by looking at the redirects here. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this subject notable

Non-admin closing to allow discussion to continue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuja'iyya Incident (2014). I'm not going to close this with a particular "result". AFD is the best place to determine whether a subject is notable and whether an article should remain. Participants should feel free to transclude their comments to that discussion if they haven't already. St★lwart¹¹¹

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. It is clear now from WP:RS that the subject is simply yet another battle in the never-ending middleeast conflict and the number of casualties is actually (and sadly) much lower than daily battles in Iraq, Syria, etc. that are not considered notable. Is this incident worthy of its own Wikipedia page? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs)

Keep You know we have the WP:AfD process for this sort of thing, right? Anyway, keep per WP:UNDUE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:SUMMARY: this neighborhood has existed since the 12th century's Ayyubid dynasty, so up-merging one notable battle in it that occurred there would be unseemly. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not want to nominate it as I am not sure that the article as it is now (completely changed from the original one) should be a delete... hence the RFC... --Jersey92 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your objective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A neutral factual article about a notable subject. If there are WP:RS to support calling this incident a massacre they need to be included. I don't see any on the page. If this is just another battle in which civilians were killed that repeats itself in the middle east very often, calling it a massacre in Wikipedia is wrong, and the incident may not even be notable enough for inclusion. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't see the 3 sources describing it a massacre ? There are many more of course. It doesn't mean it was "a massacre". The facts don't matter. What matters is how RS refer to it. Events like this in the conflict, no matter whether they are IDF actions or the results of Palestinian suicide bombers/gunmen etc are often referred to as massacres. That is just how it is. Try to not care. If you are not able to do that, don't edit the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7 All of the policies and guidelines referenced there are content and editing guidelines, not notability guidelines. If an event is to warrant an article, generally it has to have wide coverage and lasting impact, and frankly I don't see that here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I have to agree with Jersey92 on this one. This strikes me strongly as WP:NOTNEWS, I don't see any lasting impact given here. Being completely dispassionate here, what makes this particular massacre any different or of lasting value than any of the myriad of others by either side. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I nominated this for deletion. There is certainly enough grounds here to warrant it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly the largest - perhaps only? - actual battle, where militants (probably) ambushed IDF, and incurred substantial casualties. Also referred to as a "massacre" etc by Palestinians. Maybe it can be deleted/merged in the aftermath, but as it is, I think it makes sense as a separate article. Ketil (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Jersey92 as well, this incident is not special at all. Softwatt (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unjustified removal of large amounts of text

Solarra’s edit removing the casualty list has a specious motivation., This is a major edit, but gonna be WP:BOLD here. I've never seen a list of causalities in an article and find it completely unnecessary to the article. formatting: whitespace (using Advisor.js

This is either specious or shows a lack of familiarity with I/P articles where lists of the dead are normative see any incident where 20-30 Israelis died (See any of the dozens of articles in List of Palestinian suicide attacks). They are all punctually listed, and the fact that this is a Palestinian list. Therefore the removal was not WP:BOLD: it was just the removal of uncomortable information. It must be restored immediately.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

With maybe as many as 150 killed on both sides, I think this list will be too long, and probably never complete. Better link to (external) lists of casualties. Of if you insist on doing the legwork of sorting out all this information, make a separate article and link to that. IMO. Ketil (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The number of dead will be 65-70 Palestinians, 13+3 Israelis, for that incident. Both deserve lists, as is normal. People objected that the article should be deleted because there was little to it, other than stating the event. Now that it can be expanded, the objection is that it would be too long, untrue because the list is 3,500 bytes, and the article lengtrh very short by wiki standards. One needs an objection based on wikipedia precedents, or policy, and the precedents show that policy has no objection to such lists, since certain Israeli articles have extensive lists to them.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL please read it if your not familiar with it.If such list exist in other articles they should be removed of course--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This page seems to fit into many categories of what Wikipedia is not. Propaganda. Memorial. News. Yet another battle in the middleeast. There were reports of more people killed in Libya, Syria, and Nigeria on the same day that this took place and I don't see articles about those incidents. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. If that is what you genuinely believe, go and remove the list of Israeli causalities from all articles. Work your way through the articles in Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups. When that is done, come back and leave a note that it's done. If you don't do that I will be restoring the list of causalities to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, your argument from WP:NOTMEMORIAL is an egregious example of partisan rule use to game an article, and the cited rule is not relevant since that guide reads

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

None of the victims in this, or the articles listed below, are relatives of any editor, as far as I know, but victims in a public and notorious incident.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never in 8 years seen anyone object to the lists of Israeli dead in Palestinian attacks. I repeatedly see (Israeli) objections to any mention of Palestinians by name, something that mirrors this practice, but is objected to, I assume, because unlike Israeli victims, Palestinians are not supposed to have individual identities. I will begin to attend to that kind of objection when I see an editor like yourself acting coherently, regardless of ethnic origin, over all pages. For a start, try removing if you believe what you assert, the roll of names of the victims in

• Dizengoff Street bus bombing
• Beit Lid massacre
• First Jerusalem bus 18 suicide bombing
• Second Jerusalem bus 18 suicide bombing
• Dizengoff Center suicide bombing
• 1st Mahane Yehuda Market attack
• Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
• Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
• Ben Yehuda Street Bombing
• Haifa bus 16 suicide bombing
• Passover massacre
• Matza restaurant suicide bombing
• Megiddo Junction bus bombing
• Patt Junction Bus Bombing
• Karkur junction suicide bombing
• Kiryat Menachem bus bombing
• Tel-Aviv central bus station massacre
• Haifa bus 37 suicide bombing

While I wait, I'll reinsert the elided names on the basis of parity in WP:NPOV, and WP:systemic bias. Editors must be coherent in their behaviour. If they detect a policy violation, they should, when averted, act to expunge similar examples everywhere. This is not a policy violation, it is the application to Palestinians of a customary listing that is normative in Israeli articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Is there any objection to move this article to Shuja'iyya battle (2014). Massacre is not compliant with NPoV for obvious reasons but incident even less. What kind of incident would it be ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a battle. It's not a massacre. And "incident" is pretty poor wording. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I object. There's more heat than light right now on this topic, and, besides, the article is currently going through an AfD process which a move could complicate. On top of that, I'm not sure why you'd think massacre isn't NPOV given we have whole lists of them (e.g. List of massacres in Israel), but may we live long lives and figure this out when the dust has settled. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

2 versus 1 is not a consensus but it is a majority.

I proceed to the move. A move back to the former version should get more support.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the move, this probably should have gone through the official move channels as there is controversy surrounding it. Also does it need 2014 in the title? - Galatz (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

While I don't find the most recent title too bad, I agree with Galatz that the move should have been done through proper channels. I will keep it like this for now, since nobody seems to have objected. Kingsindian (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

This article uses twice cites a piece from Middle East Monitor titled "Premeditated murder: the Shuja'iyya massacre and Israeli criminality". Is this really a reliable source? The author Ben White (journalist), is a noted activist with the BDS movement. The article title is incendiary. The publication is questionable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Middle East Monitor. I would note that the publication's About Us page says: "There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap."[1] The organization is clearly defining itself as an activist source with a mission of advancing a particular "cause". At best, this is an opinion piece and should not be used as a source of facts.GabrielF (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ben White is mentioned with attribution. That he chose that venue to publish his piece does not mean the venue invalidates what he, a widely pubished journalist, is arguing. The list of sources he provides consist of articles in Haaretz by Anshel Pfeffer, Amos Harel, the Guardian's Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont, Yedioth Ahronoth 's military analyst, Alex Fishman, etc., i.e., all Ben White has done is line up mainstream sources, which we duly provide, and cite from them. Were I a shifty editor, I would not, anticipating objections, have mentioned Ben White. I would have just used the same sources and links, all mainstream, he supplied (as editors often do). So I fail to see the cogency of your objection. Everything we state comes directly from Haaretz, the Guardian and Ynet, and can be independently confirmed by the reader as being exactly what White reported them as saying. The objection therefore, appears to be to the content of those mainstream articles marshalled by Ben White, not to Ben White.

Ben White is an activist? So what? IF that were the criterion for exclusion, we would be forced to comb out all of the articles from Ynet, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post The Times of Israel etc written by mainstream journalists who do not disguise their extreme partisanship for the national cause, whose indepth focus on casualties concerns IDF soldiers and their families etc., in a situation summed up thus:

the Israeli press has, overall, mobilised itself in the name of the national hysteria.' Neve Gordon, 'Israel's dissenting voices get lost in the war echo chamber,' Al-Jazeera 12 July 2014.

On a wider point, all of the recent articles largely violate our rules for RS. This is true for 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict as it is for Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. In virtually every Israeli mainstream source we use, even Haaretz, not only Hamas militants are referred to as 'terrorists', but indiscriminately detained Gazans are described as often as not as terrorists, as in globes.co.il Globes. Israel’s Business Arena 150 Hamas terrorists surrender to IDF. Because that 'incendiary' language is standard in mainstream Israeli sources we do not thereby refuse to use them. That so many sources are POV-pushers has not troubled most editors since the outset of these articles, only ludicrous content elicits a challenge. So the argument about the title of the piece is not cogent.

Middle East Monitor is a partisan website just as 7online.com.: The algemeiner; Israel national news:Police Find and Stop Car Bomb On Highway 5 [video". The Jewish Press]: Reshet.tv: Mako.co.il: Nrg.co.il.News.nana10.co.il: Iba.org.il.Ejpress.org:Israel Today;IDF Brigade Commander Wounded Leading Troops Into Battle". Israeltoday.co.il.Doctorsonly.co.il,Real Clear Politics:The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Fox News Channel; Israeli Shin Bet (Security Agency) - monthly report"; Local12.com. to cite just a small sampling of the sources employed to promote a cause, which even mainstream newspapers make no bones about advancing. The only one of the several dozen bad sources you have fingered happens to be by a name journalist writing for the other side. If White is problematical, what is Judith Miller doing in these articles? We do not ban journalists from wikipedia because of their personal views. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Of the long list of sources provided in your last paragraph, I don't see any that are used in this article. I'm not familiar with many of these sources, but, on principle, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is relevant here: one can always find cases where problematic sources are used elsewhere on Wikipedia - questionable decisions made in other articles do not grant editors permission to make similarly questionable decisions here.

You are responding to a question about the use of a single source, who is clearly advocating for a particular course of action ("Israel's attacks on Gaza – including the justifications for them – are taking the shape of repeated war crimes and urgently need to be treated as such.") by raising doubts about the media of an entire country. If you want to challenge how particular sources are used in this article, that's fine, but making blanket statements about all sources from a particular country is unhelpful, particularly when we are familiar with these sources and have used them for many years.

Wikipedia has always differentiated between sources of fact and sources of opinion. White can be used as a source of opinion, but should not be used to establish a chronology, as is done here.GabrielF (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

cantanswertonite broken keyboard but you have not addressed ṃy major point.

Ben White is mentioned with attribution. That he chose that venue to publish his piece does not mean the venue invalidates what he, a widely pubished journalist, is arguing. The list of sources he provides consist of articles in Haaretz by Anshel Pfeffer, Amos Harel, the Guardian's Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont, Yedioth Ahronoth 's military analyst, Alex Fishman, etc., i.e., all Ben White has done is line up mainstream sources, which we duly provide, and cite from them.I fail to see the cogency of your objection. Everything we state comes directly from Haaretz, the Guardian and Ynet, and can be independently confirmed by the reader as being exactly what White reported them as saying. The objection therefore, appears to be to the content of those mainstream articles marshalled by Ben White, not to Ben White.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The chronology is in tḥe succession of statements cited by White and exist and are independently verifiable.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why not use original sources??--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To the central point, there seems to be no particular 'there' there. White has a bias, and his publisher has a bias. And that means what, exactly? The world is full of various points of view, and there's no logical reason to not include what is clearly meant as a representative of the Palestinian point of view. And, as for the chronology of events, what's cited by White is vertifiable on its own and isn't in serious factual dispute (or so I think, based on what I've seen). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:UNDUE if his views where important enough they would be printed in major news outlet and not in this site.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually White views that are presented. What we use are the sources he marshalled for the facts, over several days, from impeccable Israeli sources. Even without White, all of those statements are unchallengeable, so it is not as if we were using White to make a point. It is a matter of scruple to acknowledge that the evidence of these successive articles can be found first in White's summation of the key events. His rhetoric, or spin, is not something that interests this page, while the articles he cites do, because they are pertinent to the reconstruction of the 'incident' and are independently verifiable. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material by Galatz

'There are many POV statements in here. If its a battle between two sides it cant be an "attack") '

That is a technically meaningless pretext. The fact that we now have direct interviews of people who survived the battle and were eyewitness makes the inclusion of such material not only possible but obligatory, if well sourced. One might object to Mondoweiss as a source (I'd be happy to argue this at any RSN complaint you might make), but the material is not a matter of an opinionated blogger but the result of ground research by Max Blumenthal, son of a high administration insider (Sidney Blumenthal), with two books to his credit, and a journalist specializing in the Middle East, and therefore the venue is irrelevant. A battle between two sides begins with an attack by one usually, but otherwise, I fail to see what the point of that remark is supposed to suggest: if anything, a tweak. It is not a grounds for the mass excision of documentary material. Lastly you've sat round editing this page and given details in the section I added to of the IDF dispositions of battle. In that paragraph, there is no mention of what was actually happening, and the impression was 'our guys proceeded to advance in the following manner' as if there were no other party to the battle, which was self-evidently a POV skewing of a battle in which two sides were involved, the second side consisting of Hamas soldiers but also citizens. We know nothing of what Hamas soldiers say or their battle techniques, but we do have accounts of what citizens say, and their views are attributed, i.e., the indication is that their accounts are personal, not necessarily factual.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of encyclopedic material is forbidden per WP:PRESERVE and WP:YESPOV. I haven't dug through the history, but must, in general, support the restoration of the material per our policies. If such removal recurs, take the matter up at WP:AN/I. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Unreliable" casualty figures

@Jersey92: I have replaced "unreliable" with "preliminary and subject to revision", which is the phrase used in the BBC report (the former phrase does not appear there). I have also added a link to 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Methodology section which discusses these issues in detail, quoting the BBC and NYT among others. Kingsindian (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article says more than just that they are "preliminary and subject to revision" - it says that the source of the numbers has proven inaccurate in the past. What Wikipedia would call not a WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jersey92: Not sure what you mean. I can not find any quote about "inaccurate" or "questionable" in either the BBC or NYT report. What statement are you using exactly? Kingsindian (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The content of the article. REVISION: Unemployment figures are revised because more accurate information becomes available over time. IN THIS CASE: The party supplying the information is suspected of being dishonest. -Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent-Jersey92 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jersey92: Sorry, what? That makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Who is suspecting who of being dishonest? Where in the article does it say this? Kingsindian (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Spokesman Capt Eytan Buchman told BBC News that "the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation". "It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF." See the other articles as well. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsindian. As discussed in the main article, the view of Palestinians deaths have been reported by health officials, UN, NGO's and hundreds of media reports. That here has been some questions and disputes can be discussed in relevant sections, it doesn't belong in the infobox as this is clear majority view and should be stated as a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The IDF's reports are notoriously dishonest on most operations, so by the same logic . . . The businessman Eytan Buchman told the BBC? . .The PCHR put the Hamas dead at 491, the IDF at 709. B'tselem at 600. B'tselem is the only 'honest' and 'empirical' source here, and its figure is one hundred more than the Hamas/PCHR figure and one hundred less than the IDF figure. The implication is that the IDF has an interest in inflating, Hamas, as opposed to those who run its hospital registers (PCHR), an interest in deflating the figure. (a)Complicating the latter is a political interest in designating more casualties as members to do favours to families, who, if they can manage to retroactively qualify their deceased as Hamas members and therefore obtain privileges (b) it is never clear from the IDF/Hamas lists what being a member of Hamas means. Technically for the IDF, anyone from concierges and dustmen to traffic officers and trained militants are 'Hamas terrorists' or militants.Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jersey92: All of this has been discussed at length in the 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Methodology section which I included. It is totally illegitimate to claim that the numbers are "unreliable" in WP's voice, when it is a claim made by the IDF. I suggest that we include the following statement (copy-pasted from the main article) in the lead, as a neutral summary.

Current reports of the civilian/militant proportions are incomplete and not final, as real time errors, intentional data manipulation, and diverse methodologies on both sides produce notable variations in sources, depending on provenance.

In the infobox, it should be left as "preliminary and subject to revision" with a link to the methodology section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

POV Tag

Another POV nightmare with significant material coming from activist sources that do not qualify as RS, such as this Max Blumenthal piece on Mondoweiss[2]. This POV pushing on Gaza conflict articles by the usual battleground editors is beyond the pale. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In standard English, and even on wikipedia, a 'POV nightmare' does not mean 'interviews with survivors of a war'. Max Blumenthal is a perfectly creditable source. You have made no argument other than dislike and therefore I shall remove that tag, as editors on both sides who have worked on the actual construction of the article have no dowsed it with this reflex POV splashing.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(merging)

@Plot Spoiler: This wholesale removal is unacceptable. Not only is the Max Blumenthal source removed, but also tons of other sources like the ibtimes, Richard Falk, the Nation, and so on. The description of the battle is certainly important. If you want to contest it, make an argument on the talk page. Blumenthal source is eyewitness testimony and Blumenthal is a well known and widely published writer. This trumps the venue in this case. If you want to contest it, take it to WP:RSN. I was about to revert it, but I see Nishidani has already done it. Kingsindian (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler. In renewing the POV tag you write:' An argument has been made'. Again, I must correct your misuse of English. An 'argument' in the sense acceptable to wikipedia talk pages has not been made in your remarks above. Rather a statement of your feelings and opinions has been registered. You made half of an 'argument' in the colloquial sense of 'An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.' not an 'argument' of the kind acceptable here:'A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.' I.e. you gave a heated opinion, waited for no reply (exchange), and went ahead erasing material no other editor (and there are many) has argued about. This practice, which I noted elsewhere, is characteristic of your contributions record (drive by elisions of substantial text on the basis of a personal construction of RS, without talk page discussion, is problematical).Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Philip Weiss ,'What Max Blumenthal saw in Gaza,' Mondoweiss 23 Sepètember 2014. Not actually usable, but insightful into that extraordinary people, and to the character of men like Blumenthal, who went they meet utter poverty that retains dignity, are humbled.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead expanded

I have expanded the lead based on MOS:LEAD. There are 4 paragraphs:

1. Battle: definition, casualties
2. Warnings, human shields allegations etc.
3. Battle and military assessments
4. International reaction

If there are any issues, can be discussed here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

With regard to my removal of the Harriet Sherwood reference: I believe that the Sherwood reference said absolutely nothing that was not said earlier in the article, in the "Independent" reference. Was it inserted simply in an attempt to "score more goals than the other team"? Briansacks (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the above-mentioned change because it mucked up the references, seeing as the same Sherwood reference was cited previously. But I pose the same point here: why include "According to The Guardian's Harriet Sherwood, independent reportage by international journalists in Gaza has not back up such claims" when that merely repeats the earlier "Independent" reference? Briansacks (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the Harriet Sherwood reference alongside the "Independent" reference, thus maintaining the reference. I removed "According to The Guardian's Harriet Sherwood, independent reportage by international journalists in Gaza has not back up such claims" in order to eliminate the duplication of virtually identical statements within a single paragraph (as explained above) Briansacks (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

battle result: why no "israeli victory"?

In (almost?) every battle entry in wikipedia the "relust" section says "(name of side) victory", or "inconclusive". This one says "damage to nieghberhood". how is this relevant? is this the decisive outcome of the battle? this is on par as writing "result: people hurt" or "result: ammunition wasted".

the battle was an israeli victory. It is undisputed, i suppose, that the objective of the battle was to take the city and destroy it's tunnel network; that was 100% achieved. the city was completly taken in about a day and remained under absoloute israeli control until the end of the ground phase, with all tunnels known to the idf destroyed, not to mention almost completed annihilation of hamas's shujaiyya battalion. So why not write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.169.59 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In a few hours, Israel lost a 5th of the soldiers who died in a 51 day campaign. Bothj sides could claim a victory: Israel that it had razed to the ground a suburb (atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant), Hamas that it had, by Israeli admission, bloodied the nose of an infinitely more powerful and self-confident aggressor. No one 'won'.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument is perplexing. The precentage of casualties regarding the whole war is, for you, and indication to whoever lost the battle? This is an extreme logic leap. Why shouldn't we deduce from it that the whole war was extremely succesfull for israel, so that 13 man make up for a 5th of it's losses? Do u think 13 man are a lot to lose when taking a town, and killing dozens of militants in it? if the idf got a "bloody nose", hamas got decapitated.

i'm trying to understand your interests here; hamas lost the city, lost the tunnels, and at least 4 or 5 as many times men as the IDF did. How is this not an israeli victory? Because hamas "claims victory"? They are a paramilitary group; they ALWAYS claim victory. To this day egypt claims it won yom kippur war, but wikipedia still calls it "Israeli military victory" because this is a site based on FACTS, not on claims from one of the sides.

You have completely failed to explain your position. Through your logic, the soviets lost the battle of berlin, or wouldv'e lost if only a nazy leader would rise up and say "we won!"/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.52.13 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The rhetoric of both sides is meaningless. Hamas proclaimed a victory, and perhaps you can find some RS that trumpets the flattening of Shujaiyya as a victory (iut withdrew, and neither occupied nor held the terrain). The judgement as to who won in the infobox should be neutral, and no historical consensus is available to allow us to confidently state who 'won'. So the box should not mention either claim, or say both declared victory, if sources exist for such claims.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you really not aware you are factually mistaken? The idf occuppied and held shujaiyya for the entire duration of the ground phase. The idf's proclaimed objective, even before the incursion, was to "destroy the tunnels". As you know, shujaiyya's tunnels were destroyed. how was this done without "holding the terrain"? Here is a CNN article from 5 august-end of the ground phase-wich tells of gazans only now able to return to shujaiyya: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/05/world/meast/mideast-crisis/. That is-only after more than a week, and after the IDF completed it's mission. I am sorry, but you have clearly been misled and/or failed to reseasch the facts when trying to discuss this subject. If this is your argument-That the IDF didn't won because it didn't hold the ground, you are 100% wrong and should admit it.

i am editing the result section again. Please be decent enough to admit your mistakes, and stop trying to hide the facts. this is en encyclopedia, not a palestinian (or other) propaganda template.

change the name to "Shejaiyya Massacre"

I have searched internet quite a lot and i have found next to none reliable references for "Battle of Shuja'iyya" while "Shejaiya massacre" is mentioned almost everywhere. I propose changing the name thus. I am currently adding "Shejaiya massacre" as "also known as" in the lead, but please discuss as i think there is a strong case to be made for the change of title. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, of the 4 sources there, only one uses the term "Shejaiyya massacre", and that's in an editorial talking about "massacres". The other 3 say people said there was a massacre there, in 2 cases referring just to the market and one to the whole battle. In other words, these sources do not substantiate that "Shejaiyya massacre" is a "significant alternative title" for the article about the whole battle per WP:BOLDTITLE and should be removed. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Many publications have to deal with pro-israel Jews and their Palestinian-hating friends whinging at them incessantly when it comes to talking about Israeli actions that result in considerable Palestinian civilians dying. This is just semantics at this point but it's plain that the idiots of Golani ended up murdering a whole lot of civilians with their temper tantrum (the repeated artillery bombardments on a built up area) after they found out that they die just as easily in combat and Israelis are not "superior" to Palestinians in that regard. The point being is that even if the evidence of the overwhelmingly civilian death toll was rubbed in everyone's faces repeatedly, some publications would still err on the side of "caution" to avoid being accused of "hating Jews" for reporting the facts on Shuja'iyya. King leer01 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. All Rows4 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with removing that it's also been called a massacre. (One of the issues here is that there are roughly 17 different ways to spell the name of the neighborhood, so Googling any one given spelling is going to have vastly different results.) The use of the word "massacre" towards attacks on both sides on Israel-Palestine conflict has been politicked to death on a variety of Wikipedia talk pages over the past 9 years; and although I can't find the article I'm thinking of just now, incidents such as this and this are both dubbed "massacres" even though the death toll was relatively light. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If sources call it "X massacre", then that can be in bold in the lead. People saying there was a massacre there is not enough. See WP:BOLDTITLE. It needs to be a "significant alternative title". If you can find a few sources that actually call it the "Shujaiyya massacre" (regardless of the spelling of Shujaiyya), then please go ahead and do so. Otherwise I'm going to remove this soonish. Mentioning in the article body that people call it a massacre is of course fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, we both know I can easily marshall the sourcing.[3] If you insist on doing the dance, I'll dance. But why put us both through the trouble? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the results of that google search? Do you understand the difference between both the words "Shujaiya" and "massacre" appearing in the same place and a "significant alternative title"? I'm putting us through the "trouble" because this encyclopedia has sourcing requirements, for a reason. Now if you could kindly find a couple of RS that call this battle the "Shujaiya massacre" we can put them in the lead and be done with it. If not, I will remove it. It's really that simple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So your plan is to rely on Loki's Wager? Plenty of sources have called the battle a massacre, but you insist that if they haven't called it exactly (spelling be damned) the "Shujaiya massacre" then it doesn't count? Good luck with that. Do what thou wilt, I'll be back to revert and add a dozen sources tomorrow. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I just realized you have over 18k edits. I can't imagine you're not very familiar with the sourcing requirements here. Please bring sources that support the claim that "Shujaiya massacre" is a "significant alternative title" per WP:BOLDTITLE or stop wasting everyone's time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I gather the sources and dance you promised are not forthcoming? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sources that did not support the BOLDTITLE, one of which wasn't even related to the topic of this article. I left the Daily Star editorial, which I think does not support the title and even if it did, wouldn't be enough for bold in the lead because at least this one actually had the term we're looking for. Looking forward to seeing some sources that actually comply with the requirements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC) I agree with the initial comment that there seems to be no sourcing at all for this to be called "battle of shujaiyya". From what I recall, it used to be called "shujaiyya incident", but it was changed to "battle of shujaiyya" for the reason that "massacre" was deemed too POV, and "incident" was too vague. I don't even know what to call this. There are some sources which say that the Palestinians call this the Shujaiyya massacre (see this for an example) But I am not sure if just calling it that would fulfill NPOV. I don't really see a good name for this. Perhaps "2014 Israeli military operation in Shujaiyya"? This is what it's called in this EU resolution. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the first source I see that actually supports that. But if you're right and there are not many sources that support the "battle" name, then we should probably move it to something along the lines of what you suggest above - 2014 Shujaiyya something something type thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It can't be called Shujaiyya Massacre for NPOV reasons. I'd be minded to call it by the name the Israelis gave to a specific military operation, were that known, but even that - giving one's side's name to a battle, is problematical per NPOV. Is there any doubt that it was a 'battle' (among other things)? This is actually more neutral than 'Israeli assault', 'Israeli attack' etc., the descriptors used throughout reportage.Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there was a battle, so I don't really see anything wrong with it. There is a bit of an issue that the "massacre" part refers more to the Israeli response to the initial "battle" (massive and/or indiscriminate firing), so calling it "battle" might give a bit of a misimpression. But, as I said, there is no really good name for this, so might as well keep "battle". Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about 2014 Shujaiya battle? Doesn't sound like a proper name (unlike "Battle of Shujaiya", now that I think of it) so it wouldn't require specific sourcing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, anyone object to removing the bold "massacre" from the lead? Nobody has shown it's a "significant alternative title" per WP:BOLDTITLE No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute

What makes a polemic at the Gatestone Institute a reliable source?Briansacks (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The piece is titled "Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes". The author, Mudar Zahran, is a politician. The sponsor, the Gatestone Institute, is a neoconservative think-tank. In what world does that make this a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this from a different angle. What disqualifies it as a reliable source? None of the things you've enumerated so far do so. GraniteSand (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:IRS#Definition of a source. Source has three related meanings on Wikipedia: the piece of work, the writer, and the publisher. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The piece of work is a polemic, not a news article. Anonymous hearsay from a politician is not authoritative, and the Gatestone Institute is known for its opinions, not its rigorous fact-checking. Now please explain how this qualifies as a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem confused; your link has nothing to do with my question. Reliable sources don't have to be news articles. I have no idea where you go that idea. You're also using words like hearsay, which suggests a legal litmus that doesn't exist in this context. Your uncorroborated opinion of the Gladstone Project is irrelevant. The cited material states, "X said Y, according to Z". The source provided completely fulfills the needed verification of this statement. Again, nothing you're objecting to actually disqualifies the citation as a reliable source and so I'll ask again, what makes you think it does? GraniteSand (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add to this:

(1) The source is, to a significant extent, corroborated elsewhere in the article, both by the IDF (not surprisingly, of course) and "European Union .. also criticising Hamas calls for using 'human shields'".

(2) The suggestion of the use of Human Shields is corroborated by the captued Hamas combat manual

(3) Why should the source be any more unreliable than several journalists quoted, given they were reporting under the threat of "#Hamas retaliation" according to Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati?

In view of this, I request that the "Unreliable Source?" tag be removed. Signing the above: Briansacks (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed."

Numerous testimonies already cited give a version radically at odds with what an anonymous medical student is quoted as saying here, quoted by a wealthy Jordanian politician, and former US embassy assistant, whose views on everything in the conflict are identical to the official Israeli line, asserts.

That would be WP:OR by using (as yet unproven, see the relevant articles: it is a wartime POV widely diffused, and we await neutral sources to confirm it.- The precedent is 2008-2009, 2012, where the standard meme of human shields flooded reportage, all from Israeli official sources, only to remain unconfirmed or dismissed by more neutral investigate organizations).

In the second place, this is not about a generic topic, but about the methods putatively employed by Hamas in a specific battle, Shuja'iyya. We have this one source, from a not particularly reputable, certainly highly activist POV-promo group funded by Nina Rosenwald, "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate," according to The Nation, and an investor in West bank settlements. One really can't have it both ways on Wikipedia, and in the I/P area esp: refusing a voice to serious journalists publishing in Mondoweiss, and +972 magazine whenever that comes up, and then push to have material from the Gatestone institute et al,.

Extraordinary claims require strong sourcing, not a oncer quote fished up by a activist organ from some Palestinian-Jordanian who, for whatever reason, sides against Hamas in the infra-Palestinian polemics. A very large number of PNA comments critical of Hamas, and backing Israel, were made. The PNA's jobs are all paid by U.S.-Israeli funds. As to the captured combat manual, like most of the hysterical reportage made during the war, it died as soon as hostilities ceased, after questions were raised about its authenticity.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Can you prove your "it died as soon as"? As I see there's a serious critic (Andre Lefebvre, Wojciech Cies, etc.) at your link. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me illustrate the technical point by mirroring Zahran's article.

Yousef Alhelou, 'Survivors of massacre in Khuza’a say Israeli forces used Palestinians as human shields,' Mondoweiss July 26, 2014

This has numerous survivors, this time identified by name, unlike in Zahran's article, who recount an identical episode, and give a completely different construction. I.e. that Israelis lured them into killing fields, and Hamas's putative human shield policy had nothing to do with the high death toll. I don't feel tempted to use it because Mondoweiss can be challenged as RS. I expect editors to have the same scruples with dubious sources like this, here, for which we have one anonymous testimony filtered by a pronouncedly pro-Israeli Jordanian polemicist. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of irrelevant, hostile characterizations (wealthy politician?) and a lot of talk of your interpretation of other sources What I'm not hearing why this isn't topical and appropriately sourced. GraniteSand (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right; you're not hearing. Here are two discussions at WP:RS/N that concluded Gatestone was not a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion.[4][5] As I wrote, it's not a reliable source, and you have yet to explain how it satisfies WP:IRS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have found a source which contains Zahran's point, attributed to the IDF, and therefore this renders the dubious use of Zahran supererogatory. Apart from being hearsay by a man with a distinct position (identical to Israel's) from a source he will not name, the venue, as noted, is not a reliable source. And he is not himself, to judge from searching around, very reliable for anything else than his opinions, which are neither here nor there. I agree therefore that the source can or should be removed. If there is substance to these rumours, the fieldwork interviews being conducted by HRW, Amnesty and B'tselem will pick them up and refer them. And if they do, we will add those sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous two comments aside, I'm satisfied enough with the update made since I last commented and the present state of the section in question. If consensus is in the same place then all I have to add is well done and thanks for following through. GraniteSand (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, you bring as evidence two cases of remarks' exchange among 5 users. Do you really consider them sufficient for a "final verdict"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "two cases of remarks' exchange among 5 users" means. I also didn't make a "'final verdict'". What are you talking about? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See your post of 18:02, 3 April 2015 : "Here are two discussions at WP:RS/N that concluded Gatestone was not a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion.[6][7]..." --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Max Blumenthal reference

I have reverted the removal of the Max Blumenthal reference. It is not a good idea to simply remove everything by reflex "this is mondoweiss, so it has to go". Firstly, it is not Mondoweiss; the piece was originally published in Alternet, for which Max Blumenthal works as a journalist. Secondly, the piece is based on witness testimony and directly quoted there. Nobody to my knowledge has challenged the facts written there. Thirdly, there is plenty of corroborating evidence. I have added some references from the UNHRC report. Similar ones can be added from Breaking the Silence testimonies. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Max Blumenthal, Alternet or Mondoweiss are reliable sources. If this information appears in actual reliable sources then by all means add those. Meanwhile, I didn't remove any information or tag anything that had another sources, but this one is not RS and I'm going to remove it again shortly.

Feel free to try to get explicit consensus to include it, but that ONUS is on you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss and "Alternet" are far more reputable, facts-wise, when it comes to Israel-Palestine then the likes of Gatestone Institute or most israeli newspapers barring Ha'aretz. Especially when it comes to Gaza and things like the Israeli slaughter of civilians in Shuja'iyya. King leer01 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not how it works. First of all, you have violated WP:BRD. If you make an edit, and get reverted, it is not proper to simply make the edit again. Secondly, please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source especially the line "all three can affect reliability". Reliable sources are always meant to be judged in context, not some absolute rule that "Mondoweiss is not reliable". Blumenthal is a journalist who has written for various mainstream publications. This piece happened to be in Alternet (where he was employed then) and Mondoweiss, but that does not invalidate it by itself. Thirdly, almost every pertinent fact cited is corroborated elsewhere. I added references to some of them, and can easily add others. Fourthly, nobody claims that Blumenthal made all these quotes up, why have you put a citation needed tag on that? You can find a similar quote in the UNHRC report (pg 71). Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand exactly how it works, and Blumenthal in Alternet or Mondoweiss is not a reliable source by any criteria. I put cn tags where there was no other source under the assumption there was a reason for a source being there in the first place. Nobody needs to claim Blumenthal made anything up, it's enough that the information is challenged or even likely to be challenged (per WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT) for it to require a source. And like I said, the ONUS is on you, the one who wants to include the information. I could have easily just removed it, but I don't do that unless I think the information is likely false or it runs afoul of some rule here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Where on RS/N boards has a firm decision been made that under no circumstances may Mondoweiss be used? I have yet to see any determination in this sense, recent discussions have had a few unrelated editors saying it is a contextual call. Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrongly quoting WP:ONUS. That policy is talking about the point that verifiability need not mean inclusion. WP:PROVEIT is not relevant here, it simply states that every fact must have a citation to a WP:RS. The relevant point is whether Blumenthal's piece is WP:RS in this context. Witness interviews from a journalist stating facts which can be easily verified, (and many are), is perfectly acceptable as a source for those facts. While I am glad that you have not removed the information, your removal of the only source for those facts makes it likely that some other person will remove it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal's reports in Mondoweiss etc. appear to be largely reproduced in Max Blumenthal,The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, Nation Books 2015 (this month), which is RS, indisputably. So keeping his Mondoweiss article out on RS grounds while accepting, as one must, that the same author's book on the battle is RS, would be extremely anomalous, querulous nitpicking. I.e. it would mean an established journalist's work is RS if printed in book form and published by an established publisher, but the same work is not RS if the venue is Mondoweiss. The Mondoweiss article is acccessible and verifiable, to boot, whereas the book, being recent, gives only snippets, and thus the former is preferable for wiki. It is not the venue he chooses, but that status of the writer as an established investigative writer and reporter on the area, that determines RS.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure his book is "RS, indisputably"? He's not a journalist, he's a polemicist. He is rarely if ever used by actual reliable sources for facts, only for his opinion. The book was published by a general press, not an academic one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When a journalist has an opinion, he is a polemicist, and loses his credentials. Tell that to Amos Harel, all the writers of The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Ynet etc., regularly quoted on most pages, who have never been to the Gaza and probably not to the West Bank for field interviews, and 'opinionate' with the usual stock terms and mirror IDF spin anything that happens. You appear to be objecting to anyone actually doing investigatory journalism on Palestinians, you know, those folks beyond the separation barrier everyone writes about without actually interviewing any.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I picked up that idea from you, as you often dismiss people like Khaled Abu Toameh as a "polemicist" despite the fact he is regularly used in RS for facts. He knows more than a lot of people you quote in articles, etc, etc, blah, blah, what a silly argument you present.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Kindly explain, in terms of Wikipedia policy - not your argumentum ad passiones - why you think Blumenthal, and by extension his book, are "indisputably RS". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You do some work for a change, and explain why Blumenthal isn't a journalist, nor an established writer on the I/P conflict, and Nation Books not RS. G'nite.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I already did, but let me try again: because he fits none of the criteria of WP:RS, of which "established writer" is not one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Explain why, after reviewing PublicAffairs, and this. This time my 'yawn' is real.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Because that's not a scholarly press and he's a polemicist. You'll notice that even the PublicAffiars blurb about him doesn't call him a journalist. Neither he, nor his book, are reliable sources for facts. That's the last time I'm repeating myself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You can repeat your personal opinion as often as you like. It is known. It is always no. In wiki method, these things are determined by concrete evidence. Google Books will give you several dozen recent books, reputably published, where he is introduced or referred to as a 'journalist'.(2) As to his work, it's controversial, but taken seriously within the American community. Ian Lustick is as strong an authority you get on all of these issues: he debated one of Blumenthal's books at Penn State, Wither Israel/Palestine 17 October 2013. It's on Youtube. I recommend the whole talk but if you, as you tell me, don't have much time, flick to Lustick's comments at 23 minutes in. He calls Blumenthal's book 'important' and urges everyone to consider buying it. He then speaks of the Wittgensteinian distinction between grammar and ordinary language. Grammar is what you read in the NYTs and in official documents and ordinary language, which is what ordinary folk think and say to each other. 'What this book is . . . let's see what we can learn from the ordinary language in Israel'. He adds that what Blumenthal is doing is on the ground 'ethnography', not the official record. He says that he himself learnt far more interviewing average people and low level bureaucrats than reading these official texts. If a scholar of Lustick's standing, perhaps the leading world scholar on colonial states, thinks Blumenthal's work is worth studying, then your personal opinion, having read neither evidently, is worth nothing. You and co., appear to wish on wiki what governments or the US or Israel's official record states, but not the unguarded off the record experiences and realities of people, which scholars consider just as important. Encyclopedic matter is not a Photostat of government handouts, or NYTs leader opinions. Take it to RS/N.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment by NMMNG that Blumenthal's book is not published by a scholarly press is a strange complaint. Do you see any references in this article which come from scholarly press? This is a relatively recent event, it is entirely natural that this is the case. I will note that we are not forced to continue arguing forever. If there is an impasse, there are plenty of formal mechanisms of WP:DR. Right now, all I'm hearing is WP:JDLI. A source does not need to be "unbiased" to be reliable.

Meanwhile, Averysoda has again disregarded WP:BRD and reverted with nary a comment on the talk page. In his zealousness, he has also removed the UN inquiry report source. I ask you to please revert to the WP:STATUSQUO, and discuss on the talk page, or pursue WP:DR, use WP:RSN etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC) :Excuse me, what UN source are you talking about? Now, let's see, I don't agree with many of the things a source like that might say, but at least I respect those types of sources, simply because they have some kind of encyclopedic value or reliability. But you can't use someone like Max Blumenthal to describe something else than his own attributed biased opinion (whenever that's relevant). It's like if I use Anita Bryant to talk about the history of homosexuality. What's the need to bring weird sources when you have so many newspapers critical of Israel? Please no more extremely partisan unreliable sources like blogs, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, Boko Haram, David Duke or Mr Blumenthal who considers Israel to be a "Nazi state" or something like that. If the events described in this battle are true, I'm sure you won't have any problem to use normal sources, and by that I mean digital newspapers, encyclopedias, recognized international organizations like the Red Cross... or even recent books by real scholars, not militant "journalists" or radical lefties like Blumenthal, there is a reason why I don't see Blumenthal being cited in the BBC, CNN, New York Times or even Haaretz (unless it's for the purpose of debating or as an eccentricity to attract attention, but not serious reporting). At least pretend there is something called neutral point of view.--Averysoda (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Averysoda: You seem like a new user, therefore I am repeating my points. You have disregarded the process of WP:BRD, barged into a page where a discussion is going on, and reverted without bothering to explain on the talk page. Please read WP:STATUSQUO which states that when there is no consensus, the article remains in the previous state while discussion is carried on. As to the UN reference, please check your edit. In your zeal to expunge Blumenthal, you also removed the corroborating references which I added, from the UN inquiry, and a report by Channel 4 correspondent Jonathan Miller. When you state that "If the events described in this battle are true, I'm sure you won't have any problem to use normal sources, and by that I mean digital newspapers, encyclopedias, recognized international organizations like the Red Cross", you ignore that this is precisely what I did. The discussion above makes this exact point: most of the points Blumenthal describes are corroborated in other sources. As to Blumenthal's bias, I have linked it above, but please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. If you must, add an attribution to the part where Blumenthal is cited. This wholesale removal of stable material without consensus is improper. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

more extremely partisan unreliable sources like blogs, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, Boko Haram, David Duke or Mr Blumenthal

Averysoda. Failure to distinguish is the commonest error here. Blumenthal made his name as an investigative journalist with a book Republican Gomorrah. Reviewers found the detail there 'appalling', 'frightening' because, rather than opinionize about the big picture, he went around interviewing observing, quoting all the figures in the minor echelons of the Republican movement, racists, evangelicals, apocalyptic visionaries. It was well received. When he spent months going around doing the same background interviews in Israel and produced a similar volume, he got hit with the usual flush of anti-Semitic accusations, often by the same sources that approved his deconstruction of white supremacy in the US. Were he on a par with David Duke, Boko Haram et al.,you would not find him at Penn State University debating with Ian Lustick. Lustick is a scholar, an authority of the mental landscape of nationalism, esp. among Jewish fringe groups. He found Blumenthal's book 'scary'. He also said what Blumenthal surveyed was out there. As to 'bias', like Blumenthal, Lustick is passionate about these things and said, apropros Antonio Gramsci, one of the formative influences on Lustick's scholarship,:'Without passion you can’t know anything' (debate Youtube 1:15 minutes). And throwing words like 'radical lefties' is nonsensical. This has nothing to do with 'radical lefties' but with infra -American Jewish debates: like a very large part of the liberal Zionist constituency in America, he is appalled at many things in the I/P zone. Notably, few of them agree: Weiss quarrels with Blumenthal, Blumenthal with Eric Alterman, Alterman attacks Gilad Atzmon who in turn dismisses Blumenthal's book as an attempt to 'vindicate the Jews as a collective'. Weiss hosts Blumenthal, but he also talks to Atzmon, who otherwise has no time for such Jeish liberal progressives. This is a complex world, and these people form a small but forceful part of the debate in the United States. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody that WP:BLP applies to all parts of Wikipedia, including this page. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see Blumenthal being cited in the BBC, CNN, New York Times

• Max Blumenthal, 'A Rightward Shift in Israel Would Reflect What’s Always Been True,' New York Times 14 December 2014.
• Anshel Pfeffer. And never the narratives shall meet,' Haaretz 2 November 2013

A literary critic or reviewer (and I am writing here as neither) could pan "Goliath" for being riddled with inaccuracies, devoid of any compassion for Jewish Israelis (and not much for Palestinians either), for its breathtaking hyperbole and lack of any qualifying context to its devastating conclusions. But most of these flaws don't really matter because as far as it goes, "Goliath" is pretty factual when it comes to providing the outline and main details of "Loathing in Greater Israel". There is a lot of racism and hatred and prejudice and injustice in Israel, and regrettably this was the case both under left- and right-wing governments. That's no secret. . . .Blumenthal represents a view among American Jews (of course it also exists elsewhere, but that is another column) that the very concept of a "Jewish" state is racially repugnant. Today it is a minority view but a century ago it was pretty much the prevailing attitude among the American Jewish intelligentsia.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So, let me see if I get this right... you want to use as a source some bigot who is against Israel's right to exist. Lovely. I guess he is not so obsessed or 'disgusted' by the fact that there are over 20 Arab states (almost all of them dictatorships), or more than 50 Islamic ones. But the simple notion of one Jewish state about the size of New Jersey seems to be intolerable and "racist".

:::And I don't care if that guy is Jewish, Arab or Chinese. I argue with ideas, not ethnicities. I've read the article of Max Blumenthal. I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him.--Averysoda (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

'some bigot who is against Israel's right to exist. . .I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him' I suggest you erase that, as a flagrant WP:BLP violation. It only testifies to the fact that you know nothing of the subject, nor the context. It is quite pointless reasoning with you any further.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Averysoda, no critics of Israel should be allowed as sources. 76.70.6.43 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said such a thing. Pay more attention.--Averysoda (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your own source says his book is "riddled with inaccuracies" but you want to use him in an encyclopedia as a source for facts? For real? And your NYT link is, as usual, an opinion piece. No serious news organization uses him for facts. That's because he's a polemicist and not RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Had you looked at the thread closely, and the RS/N thread you would have noted that Blumenthal and Mondoweiss are being cited for their interviews. Interviews are testimonies of people involved, not 'facts'. No review I have met has said he or other reporters are making their interviews up. I don't cite any of these sources for historic facts, and many of the errors consist of misspellings and dates. You ignored the rest of Anshel Pfeffer's remarks: with regard to the abuses, racism etc. , the same journalist notes that ' "Goliath" is pretty factual .' I bolded both, you leapt on half of the piece and ignored the rest. Selective reading.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope indeed. Anything you take from him and do not attribute, you're presenting as fact. And he's not a reliable source for facts, especially when dealing with 3rd parties. That he gets the "general outline" "pretty factually" is the kind of endorsement you'd like for an author here? Don't be ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer the point for once.' "Goliath" is pretty factual .' Ian Lustick, a rigorous academic, has likewise commended the book. I'm not convinced by arbitrary editorial opinionizing, but by sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A polemicist that writes books "riddled with inaccuracies" that are only "pretty factual" when dealing with the general outline should not be used in this encyclopedia. That's your answer, for the 5th time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is boring. Both are Pfeffer's opinions, not statements of facts. Iy would bne factual if he listed several dozen inacurracies. I've noted several inaccuracies myself. The book have 500 pages. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Too funny. You brought this source up. You were stating his opinions as fact right up until you realized they don't endorse your polemicist as much as you read into them. Might want to check that confirmation bias again. I actually laughed out loud. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you stop turning every technical issue here into a game to display your lack of wit? I bolded both passages, meaning your attempt at sarcasm:'You were stating his opinions as fact right up until you realized . ' is dumb. I drew your attention to both judgements. This is obvious a technique of blabbering on until the issue is forgotten. I'll take up Blumenthal at RS/N-Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to the "pretty factual" part, which you emphasized more than once, apparently thinking it supports your position. As if we want a "pretty factual" encyclopedia. And please, as someone who regularly implies other people are dumb, you're really not doing a good job of showing how smart you are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading the first paragraph of "Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel" one know exactly what Blumenthal is made of. "regulate the caloric intake" - fringe conspiracy of pro-Palestinians. "Gaza was surrounded... electric fences" - complete BS. Smart-indicative fence, yes but electric??? Blumenthal takes bits of truth and rumors and blow them which completely destroy his credibility. It is sad b/c some stories he has published may be true but it all lost in the mixture of propaganda. DaniDin (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Eric Alterman had to say about him and his book: But Blumenthal proves a profoundly unreliable narrator. Alas, his case against the Jewish state is so carelessly constructed, it will likely alienate anyone but the most fanatical anti-Zionist extremists, and hence do nothing to advance the interests of the occupation’s victims. Exactly what you base an encyclopedia on, eh? Gives some insight on why certain editors are so eager to include it, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric Alterman is wp:rs ? Strange opinion... Pluto2012 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think disqualifies him from being RS? The fact he's a professor of English and Journalism, or the fact he's a journalist in his own right? Is it because he writes in Jewish magazines? We know you think that's automatic disqualification right there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• The quote by Alterman says nothing about the reliability of specific incidents. And yes, Alterman in this article is just a writer giving an opinion. In the same article, he says "Blumenthal’s accounts are mostly technically accurate, but often deliberately deceptive." Well, the things which we are citing are technical details (witness testimony), not some "case against the Jewish state". A quote by a hostile reviewer does not say anything about the points here. You can find a hostile reviewer for anybody who writes anything on Israel-Palestine.
• What I've not seen here is some indication that anything Blumenthal wrote here is incorrect. All I'm seeing is an absolute "Blumenthal is unreliable: you can't use him", which is simply incorrect as pointed many times. Reliability is always in context. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So he is wp:rs...

He wrote this :

Israel Turning Into Theocracy.

Israel is no democracy, and it never has been with regard to the 4 million Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. It has always been a decidedly imperfect democracy concerning its own Arab citizens.

Lately, however, it has become less and less democratic with regard to the rights of its Jewish population. For reasons of demography, the Israeli body politic is increasingly dominated by Haredi Jews on the one hand, and secular nationalists, many of whose families emigrated from Russia, on the other. Neither group demonstrates any intrinsic interest in liberal political niceties like free speech, minority political rights or civil liberties.

The trend was already evident when the government passed a bill that makes any initiator of a boycott, whether consumer, academic or cultural, liable to be sued in civil court for damages by anyone who feels impacted by the boycott. A boycott is a fundamental right of free speech. Personally, I make it a point to boycott any Jewish philanthropy that contributes to the continued occupation of the West Bank. (...)

in Eric Alterman, Israel Turning Into Theocracy, Forward, 12 December 2011.

He seems to support the analogy between Israel and Apartheid as well as BDS... So per your standards, he is an antisemite self-hating Jew. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside your irrelevant SOAPBOX, kindly quote me calling anyone an "antisemite self-hating Jew", or retract that. I hope this request isn't "responsible of the rise of antisemitism" [8] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So you don't agree he would be a self hating Jew or he would be antisemite.

He is just and totally : WP:RS.

For me, you get the point. Any disagreement ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If your point was that even people who agree politically with Blumenthal don't think he's reliable on this topic, then no, no disagreement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added some more references to the places where Blumenthal is cited.

• I have added attribution in a couple of places where witness testimony is cited.
• I have removed one place where he says that the 7:00 am ceasefire didn't work totally because of lack of coordination between Red Cross and IDF because he only uses "probably" in his article. I have also added a quote from the UNHRC report which states that there actually was a problem with the 7:00 am ceasefire, people had to wait for many hours for ambulances to arrive. The blame is not apportioned yet, if more sources come along, we can add them.
• The only other place where Blumenthal is cited is the "soccer field" claim. I have added attribution for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Numbers

The article narrates 7 IDF soldiers killed by a Missile or IED +3 in clashes + 3 traped in a burning home +3 killed later. Thats 16 not 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source for 16 provide it. All official reports speak of 13.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominating a title change for the article

What happened here wasn't really a battle in as much as it was a case of the Golani brigade getting a bloody nose and then throwing the equivalent of a temper fit because of it. I would forward the notion that the title should be changed to the "Shuja'iyya incident" or "2014 Israeli shelling of Shuja'iyya" in order to more accurately portray what actually happened. King leer01 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would that not qualify as a battle, as there had been two armed forces who engaged in warfare5.144.58.66 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

it's not a battle

Hi Just want to clarify something, it is not a battle, a battle includes to sides fighting with the same type of weapons, what happened in Shuja'iyya was a massacre, I suggest you change the title. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.15.64.95 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong. Battles are often asymmetrical: parity of weapons is not one of the standard criteria for defining a battle. Indeed battles are often won by sides that have a technological edge, with superior weaponry.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Shuja'iyya. 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/20140729210342/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/for-media/press-releases/israelgaza-attacks-medical-facilities-and-civilians-add-war-crime-allegatio to http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/israelgaza-attacks-medical-facilities-and-civilians-add-war-crime-allegatio
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.607496
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725173742/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2014/07/20/372086/iran-slams-israels-fresh-gaza-offensive/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/20/372086/iran-slams-israels-fresh-gaza-offensive/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140907145918/http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15300_en.htm to http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15300_en.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/2014/07/shujayea-massacre-at-dawn-201472621348901563.htmlShujayea:

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

Apropos the wounded, one needs a firm secondary text after the event for them. At the time 288 Palestinian casualties and 56-8 Israeli soldier casualties was commonly mentioned. 288 wounded288 wounded Shujaiyya

• Mads Gilbert Night in Gaza, Skyscraper publications 2015

• No Pay for IDF Soldiers Who Lost Their Sight in Gaza War Because of Lost Equipment Jewish Business News 14 December 2014.'The Battle of Shuja’iyya was fought in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, between the IDF and the Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, July 20, 2014 in the Shuja’iyya neighborhood of Gaza City. 13 Israeli soldiers were killed and 56 wounded, 120 Palestinians were killed, and 288 wounded 'Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So this should be followed up.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shuja'iyya. 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/20140723022811/https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/debate/12996-premeditated-murder-the-shujaiyya-massacre-and-israeli-criminality to https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/debate/12996-premeditated-murder-the-shujaiyya-massacre-and-israeli-criminality

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Between (7) and (8) it says "The UN The figures of Palestinian casualties are..." when it might read better written as "According to the UN the figures of Palestinian casualties are..." 205.215.242.14 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. The second "The" was probably just a copypaste error - I have removed the stray word ("UN figures" seems clear enough as a term). GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

"change israeli military victory to israeli attack repelled because the israeli army failed in taking control of the city and didn't achieve the objects it claimed it will do" 2A02:908:2814:9BA0:3509:8642:D291:7CE9 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced item removed

I removed an unsourced item that was flagged 10 months ago. I googled it in vain trying to find any confirmation of the quote.

Even if this character really said the thing he doesn't come across as a reliable source. See his article Mudar_Zahran: "far from truth and reality", "not a credible source", "fraud".

In the mean time Wikipedia is used as the source for the quote, as here: [[9]]

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No Israel military victory

There was a no victory for Israel they no take the place

Is this actually a military victory?

It seems like Israel only "succeeded" because they leveled the town but they never continued the incursion? This is the only notable battle of the entire conflict which lead to a ceasefire, shouldn't it be inconclusive?

Additionally it seems someone just edited it to be a military victory out of argument

TuaamWiki (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)