Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters

Template tags

POV, notability, and context tags are necessary until more information is added, if this is even a notable topic in and of itself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don´t like to "spin" out articles like this, but this probably should remain an independent article. Simply because there are so many school shelters that have been attacked, that I, for one, has a problem with keeping them apart. And tthere are lots and lots of sources, indeed it looks as if this is the mail think the international media are writing about.

The article needs a *lot* of work, though. For starters: the table headings "First Attack", "Second Attack" etc, are not very instructive. Why not replace it with the name of the school? And the table could/should be ordered after the date. Huldra (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I started early and I don't know school names. So. I prefer call them like this. Maybe we shall have to add more rows for the table!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would really prefer that the first item on each row was the date. And, according to the Guardian article[1],it seems the Jabalia school is called both a Elementary A&B Girls' School and Abu Hussein UN school. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But I understood it was Abu Hussein school.(source) Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

eeeek, yeh, possibly. I assume the best way to confirm this is to link it to the UN web-sites notifications about the attacks. (But, as it is, I am not going to edit this article much presently: my computer just broke down, I´m now on my reserve computer (from the stone-age, approximately) which more or less breaks down each time I get too many cookies, or try to look at news-sites. So, until my new computer arrives, I´ll keep editing, using mostly "non-heavy" external sites), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many POV issues

I have a long huge list of POV issues with this page, besides for the fact that I dont think it should even exsist. (1) When is the Israeli side that they say PIJ hit one of the schools? (2) Especially based on #1 it shouldnt be called "Israel raids" it should be called something like "2014 UNRWA school shelter incidents." (3)It should have a section devoted to how one 3 separate occasions the UNRWA has found rockets stored in their schools. There are many more issues but those are the biggest ones. - Galatz (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but for every one of those 3 school-cases: A: the schools were NOT in use, B: UNRWA themselves found it, and reported it. In other words, I cannot see that it is very relevant to this article. Israel has made several conflicting statements about the Jabalya killings, which at least to me indicate some confusion Huldra (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is confusion, its a current event that is confusing. It definitely needs to be shown as what the other side says. Thats what NPOV is, showing both sides. And its extremely relevant because it shows Hams is abusing these schools - Galatz (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That someone use empty abandoned houses is a completely different issue from using buildings filled with thousands of civilians. We should not confuse the two. (Last news: 7 schools have been attacked, not 6). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you figure? If you abuse one what stops you from abusing another? Firing rockets from the "general vicinity" of the school is just as big of an issue. It shows tendency to abuse UNRWA schools for their own gain, which is a huge violation of international law. Hamas not Israel puts the lives of those in danger. Should the IDF not be allowed to shoot back at someone firing at them? Hamas clearly has blame as well and the article should reflect that - Galatz (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you claim there is neutral documents about armaments in the schools, you can input these information. why you debate here?!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Galatz; if you want to discuss politicks or preach, please go somewhere else. Here we go with the sources. I do not know of all the 6 (7?) attacks, but I have read quite a bit about the Jabalia strike, and a little less about the Beit Hanoun strike. The report from the eye-witnesses *all* say that there was no fireing from the schools, or nearby. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A NPOV title is against the rules of WP you said to fix the article so I am. Do not move it back - Galatz (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is your POV that the title is NPOV. You broke the 1RR rule: move the article back, please, or I will have to report you. Huldra (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No it is not my opinion. The entire article from the title to the contents was very one sided showing on what Israel was doing. No mention of a possibility that Hamas hit the school. No mention of IDF returning fire. Just because the IDF says it doesn't make it true, just like how just because Hamas says it doesn't make it true. Thats why we show both sides. Additionally the article needed a lot more background info, so thats all been added. Also anything that was clearly NPOV I changed to make neutral. - Galatz (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I put back the POV tag. User Wickey-nl changed the description of Schools for the list back to attacks. This is a very POV on the incidents. The word attack implies that it wasn't retaliation. It also ignores the fact that Hamas COULD have hit some of the schools, which is under investigation by the UN. - Galatz (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014‎

There was no reactions to this in the past 24 hours, so I have taken the iniative to change it back. I have left the POV tag up there though because there are a ton of accusations against Israel that are not substantiated by sources. - Galatz (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Schools 1, 2 and 5

I have stated in the article my concern with whats shown as #2. The one source used makes no mention of it being a UNRWA school. Also the person was near his house in the vicinity of the school. It doesn't tie him to being injured from a shell hitting the school. I am sure there wasn't just one round shot so unless there is a RS that can directly tie this I think that school should be removed.

Schools 1 & 5 have no information whatsoever on them. Who says these incidents occurred? - Galatz (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I see both 6 and 7 mentioned as the number of attacks. but we really should have a link to the relevant official UNWRA statement for each. Huldra (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Right now without any RS stated any attack occurred with a date and place the article is extremely empty. If an RS cannot be found or any official statement I propose removing 1,2&5 from the chart. Change the list to being by the schools, and add maybe a note in the text somewhere that states a total of 6 schools were hit, but these are the ones that caused damage and injuries - Galatz (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has really been done about these. As I mentioned 5 days ago I propose changing the chart and set up to remove these. Are there any objections? If you object please fill them in. - Galatz (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

The most obvious question about the background is not addressed at all: why on earth are so many people living in these schools? We need a section on how Israel have told people to vacate their homes in certain areas, and how the numbers of internally displaced people have sky-rocketed as a result, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point. I added a bit on roof knocking, but I think it should still be expanded more. Probably something that shows how many homes have been destroyed forcing them to move out of their homes. Also possibly something about people being displaced in general, which I think is closer to 400k, and how only 200k are in UN facilities, others are with friends or family. - Galatz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about the UNWRA schools, lets try to limit it to that, we could perhaps use the data in the UNWRA emergency reports. It gives the number of people it is sheltering:

• 27 July 2014: 167,269 + in 83 UNWRA schools
• 28 July 2014: 170,461+ in 82 UNWRA schools
• 29 July 2014: 182,604+ in 82 UNWRA schools
• 30 July 2014: 200,000+ in 85 UNWRA schools
• 01 August 2014: 225,178 in 86 shelters

Also, we need a section about how the UNWRA repeatedly warned Israel that there were civilians in these schools (In connection with Jabalia Israel were told 17 times) . Oh, and The Reuter source you brought about the third incident were rockets have been found at a school (though a better source than the last one), still it does not mention that this school also was vacant at the time. It was; the UN spokespeople have explicitly stated that. Huldra (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think since its background the others displaced set the picture well. I think it kind of allows people to understand the situation. There is the tag on the top about how it doesn't provide context to people unfamiliar, so this would address that concern.

I actually haven't seen anything that states the 3rd school is vacant, all I saw was that it was a 3rd instance. But if you have something then throw it in.

I agree that the 17 warnings should be mentioned. Its shows the UN's stance on the situation when Israel's is shown as returning fire. Its a good addition, i'll look for some stuff. - Galatz (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just heard an interview (on BBC world service) a day or two ago, with a UN spokesman. They were pressed strongly about the rockets found in the schools, and what they had done with them. The UN spokesman was very clear about A: the rockets were not turned over to Hamas, instead the UN´s own experts were set to demolish them B: all the 3 schools had been vacated by the UNWRA at the time. Huldra (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does this sentence mean:"During the Gaza War, Israel struck at least two schools in Beit Lahiya (Asma Elementary School) and Jabalia." Beit Lahhiya is the town and then the school name, but whats the deal with Jabalia? Why are these two showing inconsistent. Also I think this school name is showing different here than on the wikilinked article. They should probably be a bit more consistent. Or am I missing something? - Galatz (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools → 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents – The name of the article implies a one sided assault on UNRWA schools. However there is background information that expands beyond schools. Also this is not a one sided attack. There are claims of Hamas hitting their own schools. Additionally retaliation for rocket fire is not considered a raid. Everything about this title suggests a POV, moving to a generic incidents page. Galatz (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I´m not too fond of the word "raid", the present title is more representative of what is going on. In all the case I have read, all eye witnesses have said there were no attacks coming from the area. Huldra (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose something like "Israel and UNRWA Facilities - 2014" since it doesn't show a one sided attack. It deals with the same context without showing unnecessary aggression, which raid in this instance does. - Galatz (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is not suitable. UNRWA schools are raided according to sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What RS states this? Can you give examples? - Galatz (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The name is already one sided now, since as far as I can see 'Israeli attacks ...' or 'Israeli shelling ... ' instead of the current 'Israeli raids ...' would be a better reflection of neutral sources, and equally importantly of the subject matter. Imc (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, currently, the title is not a neutral enough already. I agree IMc's views. See UNRWA stement [2] its considered as shelling. Also, I must say that to find this move request one-sided. Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for the aforementioned reasons. The current title is not perfect, and as User:Imc stated "Israeli attacks..." or "Israeli shelling..." may reflect the subject matter more accurately, but the proposed title is unacceptable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about the school Hamas could have hit? Why is that in an article about "Israeli shelling"? - Galatz (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That Israel says Hamas could have hit? The fact that Israel has leveled an allegation, which has been rejected by the UNRWA, does not negate the fact that Israel has still shelled UNRWA schools. And even if one accepts the IDF's account of the 24 July shelling as truth, an IDF mortar still landed in a courtyard of the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun, linking Israel to that incident and making the incident worthy of inclusion in an article titled "Israeli shelling..." or "Israeli raids...".--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support This clearly a a pov title meant to WP:POVPUSH one sided view on those incidents.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead changes

The change to the lead of "2014 Israel raids on UNRWA schools was six attacks on UNRWA facilities in Gaza Strip during 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict by Israel Defence Forces." is extremely POV. Again its saying Israel attacked, but is a POV, Israel claims they were returning fire on some and on others were Hamas. The lead should summarize the facts not state a POV. Additionally in that same vain saying it was done by the IDF is also misleading because the UN is still investigating if it could be Palestinians that fired the rockets. The red and official UNRWA statement also says 6th time struck, not 6th time by Israel - Galatz (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I accept last part of your comment. But, present evidences, say that IDF attacked the facilities no other sides. You can add information about <returning fire> and <stuck armaments>, but we cant do wikipedia:or or changing information of UNRWA.org until we find more neutral sources.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your change is good this way. I had put a source in the main part of the article under the details of that attack, so I don't think its needed in the lead, since the lead is pretty NPOV now. Thanks - Galatz (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo

The only photo on the page is 6 years old. Can we update this to one from this year? - Galatz (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That photo is for background topic. It's good if you have new photos of the current war to add to the article. In the previous war, IDF used white phosphorus bombs and Dense Inert Metal Explosive. But in the current war, IDF is using normal weapons (no WMD). Pictures can help audiences to compare Israel military tactics to the case.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Page vandalism

This is the second day in a row I have come to the page and found it vandalized by Wickey-nl. This is unacceptable. Stuff was added to the page based on conversation in the talk page and they just decide to come in and remove it all without coming here. They also are moving tags from the top of the page that are addressed in here but not coming in here to look at them, just deleted saying they see nothing wrong. If this continues I will report, I have also warned them on their talk page. - Galatz (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• You have the right to have your own definition of vandalizing, but do not demand others to use the same one.
• You happened to edit an old section of the talkpage, so I missed it. Apart from that, I did not find a valid argument for the POV template. Rather than making a lot of futile noise you could raise the issues point for point.--Wickey-nl (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you didnt read anything in the talk page otherwise you wouldn't have intentionally deleted stuff that was added to the page do to conversations in the talk page. Additionally many background items were added because there was a concern about people unfamiliar understanding the background. So don't blame me for putting it in that section, you clearly came to the page to make executive decisions. - Galatz (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing that you know what I did and did not read. The roof knocking does not make any sense in this context, nor the section about the UNRWA health center. Or can you explain what it has to do with the attacks on the schools?

If you have a problem with the term attack, fine. If you find calling an attack an attack POV, fine. But you will not have much support among honest editors for replacing the word by a covering understatement. A shelling at a target is an attack anyhow, whether at the building, or a few meters away. It were clearly attacks, clearly from the Israeli agressor. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

To give a third opinion here I think Wickey-nl could have a point about "roof-knocking" not really working in that context but, of course he could have moved it somewhere else and not deleted it without any comment. Still I think Wickey-nl is correct that it doesn't fit there. That said I don't think deleting the entire section below without any justification was ok and it could be thought of as vandalism so I would suggest that Wickey-nl put it back into the article and work with Galatz in order to find a solution.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some clarity. I do believe Roof Knocking it extremely import as is the UNRWA health clinic. Its in the background section. It shows how people got there, what the mind set is, how things are happening. Everything is 2 sided. I am not putting anything into the article that says either side is right or wrong. In my opinion I think neither side is correct. Both sides I think need to do more to protect civilians, but in the heat of the moment things happen. What I am saying is that you need context, thats why the background issues message was at the top of the page, we took it down after addding all of this info. Wickey-nl making executive decisions about what is included or not is a vandalism and a violation of the 1RR rule. WP is a community project and everyone should be consulted before decisions are made. - Galatz (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should I not remove the strange line about roof-knocking? The health center section is an absurd insertion that does not provide any background information. I can only see it as a tendentious pushing of inciting items, such as booby-traps and poor IDF soldiers who died while invading occupied territory. Still missing an explanation why this is background information. Did the collapse of the health center bring thousands of refugees into the bombed schools? --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where Wickey-nl is coming from here with the UNRWA Health Clinic section. The section is badly written and basically states that the IDF claimed they had three soldiers killed in a building that they thought was a UN building which the UN later denied and said that the building was once a UN building but has not been one for 3 years. All in all, the section doesn't really seem to add very much to the article. I would suggest that Galatz edit the section's grammar and content into two brief sentences and leave it at that. Simply putting back bad content doesn't fix anything but I understand how frustrating it can be to see content that includes referenced simply deleted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Wickey-nl, I didn't say to keep the roof-knocking line in the text where it was. I agreed with you that it seemed out of place there and suggested that you move it somewhere else. Roof-knocking is a widely discussed tactic being used in the conflict so to not mention it in an article about attacks on civilians would be to ignore an important point.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You suggested me to move it while I think it does not fit in the article at all. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we need background. People who arent familiar with the topic will wonder why people needed shelter, what happened to their homes, etc. You need to give context not just talk about the events that transpired. How else do you propose explaining the background section without explaining why people are there? - Galatz (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, roof knocking is used for houses. I have never heard it used for UN buildings. I am not sure why it is put there. Many Palestinians came to UN shelters, whether their house was "roof knocked" or not. Secondly, the UNRWA clinic section seems to have no connection with the topic, as already pointed out by others. I think User:Wickey-nl's edits were right, though his demeanour is prickly. And I would not call it vandalism, but a dispute over content. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would call it vandalism. It is a lot more than just those two topics. If those pieces of information are not in the background section you really are not giving a clear picture of why so many are there. I agree many are there other than roof knocking. It lists many examples such has booby trapped houses and leaflets. Its to give someone the full picture. Same thing as the health clinic section, its a to give someone unfamiliar with the topic background. It shows a tendency of violating international law and how Israel feels. The health clinic issue is just as important as the other schools. They both show that UN facilities are being abused. - Galatz (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz:

• It is extraordinary to call this vandalism. From WP:Vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Even the discussion here and your own response shows that the dispute is over content.
• Coming to the more important points. The UNRWA clinic part in no way belongs to this article, let along having its own section. Even if the clinic was a UN building (which it was not), it was empty and in no way can be thought of comparable to UNRWA shelters housing many people. The misuse of UNRWA facilities is already present in the background section, like the rockets found in UNRWA schools.
• As to roof knocking, I am still totally puzzled by what connection it has to attacks on UNRWA facilities. People came to UNRWA shelters for many reasons, warnings are just one of them. They may flee even without warnings. And if one wants to include warnings, then do it in a neutral manner. Please see this section, in which all human rights orgs condemn the warnings as ineffective and especially the roof knocking technique which was condemned by every human rights org across the board and the Goldstone report as well. Kingsindian (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds weird to me to demand a "full picture" of the conflict in this article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not demanding full picture of the conflict, thats very different. What I am saying is that any WP article needs background and context to help people understand it. I am not saying summarize the entire operation, but we do need a summary of this particular instance and showing how people got there. As for the roof knocking and homes being destroyed, how else to you explain to readers why these people are there? There were hundreds of thousands that left there homes after leaflets were droppped. Thats a large chunk of people.

A fake UNRWA health clinic sign shows a tendency to hide behind the UNRWA name for immunity. Although its different than schools its just as relevant as rockets being found in the empty schools. They both show abuse of UNRWA facilities. - Galatz (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I am fine with including needed background. There were plenty of dirty tricks on all sides. It is a judgement on what is needed and what is not. The point that Hamas fought from populated areas is already made in the article.

• The UNRWA clinic is totally tangential to the point of this article. The cases we are discussing here are recognized UN schools, being used as shelters, filled with people, the coordinates of which had been communicated to Israel. They had perhaps been hit because of fighting nearby, or stray fire. This is very different from fake sign on a school, not being used as shelter, empty, and coordinates of which were not communicated to Israel, which was booby trapped and collapsed. To conflate these two cases serves no purpose, in my mind. A whole subsection on this is overkill and WP:UNDUE.
• As to issuing warnings, I said already, people come to shelters for a variety of reasons, only one of which is warnings. I am still puzzled by what relevance it would have, even if the people came to the shelters because of warnings. And if you want to include warnings (not needed in my view), then do it in a neutral way, describing pro and con. Just saying Israel dropped leaflets, or rook knocked, is not sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I felt both sides were shown on why they are there. It lists Israel destroying homes, Gazan homes being destroyed because they were booby trapped, and the third reason is they were told to leave. Is there another reason I am missing? I am confused what you mean by both sides. Its showing everything that got them there. If you think Roof Knocking is ineffective, that doesn't change that people are there.

If you don't feel it needs an entire subsection like with the rockets in the empty schools thats fine, it can be trimmed down. But showing tendency to abuse the UNRWA name is extremely important to understand. All of the background is included in the main article, just because its there doesnt mean its not relevant to the background. - Galatz (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I have replaced the section with a single sentence. Perhaps it can be modified somewhat. Gire 3pich2005 seems to have removed the roof knocking part. I'm guessing by the edit summary that they are as confused as me on the relevance. Kingsindian (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I tweaked the wording a bit - Galatz (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the background section in this article should be about the subject of the article, the attacked schools. Not about the conflict itself. An explanation about the cause of refugees is OK and present in the section, but the deleted parts do not add anything to that. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, this is directly related whether you like it or not. It shows a tendency. And it was not a consensus to remove, it was agreed to condense it. - Galatz (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets in UNRWA schools

The fact needs to be mentioned, but the main point is that all the UNRWA schools in which rockets were found were vacant and closed for the summer, and were NOT being used as shelters. This is clear from the sources themselves and the section. None of the shelters which were hit were claimed to have rockets. The claim that was made was that there was fighting in the area and they were shelled by mistake. Given these facts, there should be at most a couple of sentences on this, not a whole section. Kingsindian (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its important to the background of the article. Although those particular schools were not used as shelters at the time, it shows Hamas violating international laws in the context of UN schools. It gives people an understanding of the topics. - Galatz (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: It is indeed present in the background, just reduced to two-three lines, instead of a section. Kingsindian (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This should not be in the background section since it's not background. It's part of the ongoing conflict not something from 2009. I put it in its own section and re-added the dates of the events. Dates are important things to have as clearly shown by ever UNRWA school attack claimed in this article. Remember NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: This article is not about the conflict, but the attacks on UN schools. As you can see from the current background section (last paragraph), it does not only include stuff from 2009. Stuff like many people being in the UN shelters etc. is in the background section for this reason. I do not see any reason given for including this in the lead, as well as having a full section on this, except to "make it more balanced" and NPOV in your view. I'm afraid NPOV does not work that way. You cannot arbitrarily put a data point critical of one side to balance out stuff critical of the other, without considerations of weight. I have already mentioned in the first paragraph of this section why this does not deserve its own section. Can discuss more if you like. Reverting per WP:BRD. Kingsindian (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The three instances when UNRWA found rockets in their schools did not occur in 2009 they took place in July 2014. That's why they don't belong in the background section and that's why they got their own section. They belong in the lead because the article is about attacks on UNRWA schools during July 2014 (when these instances of rockets being found in UNRWA schools took place). The introduction should summarize the article. Currently it leaves out this major fact that rockets have been found in UNRWA schools 3 times in July alone and UNRWA has made that public and condemned whoever is placing them there. trying to remove this well cited information is not justifiable.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems you also removed information on the dates and the links to information on each of the instances. That is starting to look like blatant whitewashing. I would advise you to really think about what you're doing before you start mass deleting dates and sources again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:

• Perhaps you did not understand my prose just above (it was a bit confusingly phrased). The background does not just contain events from 2009; it also contains events from 2014, like the last paragraph (starting with "Within the Gaza strip..."). The background is not based on what was old and what was new, but based on what is relevant to the attacks on UNRWA schools (background) and the actual attacks themselves (main text). This is why the rockets part is put in the background.
• As to why it does not deserve its own section or being in the lead, I already mentioned the reason in the first paragraph of this section. If you address those, I will reply.
• I do not know what you mean by "removed information on the dates...". The part about UNRWA rockets was present already in the revision. See the paragraph starting with: "During the 2014 confict, on three occasions...". Kingsindian (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing the dates hides the fact that the weapons were found prior to and during the time period when the attacks on the schools took place. I'm not an expert on this topic but I'm guessing neither is anyone writing on this page so producing a clear time-line of events with first rockets being found in a school and then an attack on other schools, more rockets being found in a school and more attacks on schools, etc. etc. seems like a very NPOV way of providing this information in the article. When I said that the dates were removed and the sources were removed I meant exactly that. Someone removed the dates from sentence and wrote "on three occasions" which completely masks the chronological element and removes the cited sources which described the events. This is in no way acceptable practice for maintaining a NPOV article on such a controversial topic.- Your point that the background to the events can somehow include things that happened after the event should be a clear contradiction to you. - The point that since the schools didn't have people in them when rockets were stored there doesn't make it irrelevant at all and certainly doesn't mean it should be excluded from the introduction. The fix for this was made by making it clear that the schools were vacant at the times when the UNRWA found the rockets but it still certainly needs to be mentioned that the rockets were first found by UNRWA in their schools before any of these attacks took place.---Finally, I'm in no way supportive of attacking schools here but I'm also in no way supportive of making an article which whitewashes claims about the circumstances/context in which such events took place. That only serves to manipulate the views of readers and conceal from them a truely balanced NPOV presentation of the facts surrounding the topic. I hope that makes sense and I appreciate your dialogue here.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: What exactly is the relation between rockets found in UNRWA schools and the attack on UNRWA shelters? Nobody, not even Israel, claims the attacks took place because of rockets in them. Kingsindian (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Its the same thing I have been saying above about the health clinic issue and the rockets in schools. It shows a trend to violate international law when it comes to places that are supposed to be left alone. It helps set the stage and helps people understand the context. An encyclopedia is for people not familiar with a topic, and this page is supposed to give them that information. - Galatz (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: The issue is not whether the fact of "rockets in UNRWA schools" is related to the attacks -- the fact was indeed present in the background section before the edits. The issue is whether it deserves its own section, as well as a place in the lead. I mentioned my reasons in the first paragraph when I made the edit, condensing the section into a couple of lines, and you agreed with me, as far as I can see. Now Monopoly31121993 wants to put it back in the lead, and give the fact its own section, as well as adding (before the first attack on UNRWA schools) in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The attacks on schools were all justified with claims that rockets were fired from there, not because there were rockets stored. Israel asserted that it fired on Hamas fighters. The dates of the finds are in no way relevant. This is also a reason why it does not belong in the background. As it was no factor in choosing schools as a target, it certainly does not deserve much space. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the definition of the word background "information essential to understanding of a problem or situation"[3]. Based on that definition this is background related and therefore belongs in the background section. - Galatz (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that it is not essential to understanding of the problem or situation. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Health clinic sentence

"Later, a booby-trapped health clinic, mistakenly thought to belong to UNRWA, was detonated killing three IDF soldiers inside."

This does not have anything to do with the attacks on schools. Moreover, the source does not relate it. Doing so by editors will be OR. Thus, even one sentence about it is to much. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Kingsindian (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned several times throughout the talk page it is all about background. It belongs in the background section. It doesn't have to be a 100% direct link to be background. Look at all the sources on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers and see how many say its related to the current conflict. You mean to tell me that its not relevant background because the sources don't say so? There is a big difference between WP:NOR and giving context to readers. - Galatz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The very essence of WP is indeed that all content should directly be based on sources, also the background. All unsourced or improperly sourced content may be removed. While I agree that for the background we can be more flexible, this is not true for controversial and/or disputed content. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?

Should the article 2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools contain the section Other UNRWA incidents? Kingsindian (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This is all about background. When you have someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, the duty of wikipedia is to give them background and context, thats the entire reason for the background section. Without that information someone coming here to learn more does not get the full picture. - Galatz (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Main reason is: this is not an article about the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. It is an article about the attacks on UN shelters. No source is given which claims that the attacks on the shelters had anything to do with the finding of rockets in other empty UNRWA schools. And there is no connection with a booby-trapped fake UNRWA clinic. It is WP:OR to connect the two and having a section for this is WP:UNDUE. The likely reason for the attacks on the shelters (or at least the one given by Israel) is already present in the background: Hamas using human shields, or firing from nearby civilian structures. I propose removing the whole section, but at the very least, this should be reduced to at most a couple of sentences and should definitely not be in the lead. Elaboration can be found here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The material in the section can remain, but the section ought to be retitled (to something like "Militarization of UNRWA schools) or simply merged into "Background". Frankly, this entire article is a huge mess and could use a rewrite to make it more readable. I guess it's hard to pages as contentious as this to read well. Sigh..... Gotta love WP. NickCT (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support but Oppose new naming of section done by Kingsindian. This is absolutely necessary for NPOV. Things happening during the conflict are not background they are part of the events (attacks on UNRWA buildings). What I see here is a pattern of revert editing in order to whitewash this issue into a Palestinian victim discourse and removing information like the dates and sources of UNRWA announcing rockets being found in their facilities is totally unjustifiable. Additionally, changing the name of the section while the discussion is ongoing is part of this. In order to show just how biased this page currently is Wickey-nl above makes the claim that the IDF justified its attacks on UNRWA building (something which doesn't even appear in the article currently much less the introduction where the rationale for such attacks would presumably belong). What's absurd is that we're discussing removing information about a current event. not because this article is too long or because it's not cited but because someone doesn't like it. That's not what Wikipedia is about and it's certainly not an attempt to keep a NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The name was given by Galatz. The other charges are just as baseless. Kingsindian (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Only items directly related to the attacks should be in the article. Both, the rockets and the Health Clinic are WP:OR in that the sources do not connect it with the attacked UN schools. Especially placing current events above the main subject or in the lead is WP:UNDUE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)