Talk:Battle of Gaza (2007)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBattle of Gaza (2007) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Please rename[edit]

This article should be renamed Palestinian Civil War. [unknown anon editor]

Disagree; this event was a coup d 'etat in the Gaza strip. Oldest such source I'm aware of is UK govt denouces coup d 'etat on Forbes, and has since been followed by numerious other countries denoucing it as a coup. Jon 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe name should change to "Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip" or something like that. Current name is ambiguous and probably won't be search able. Amoruso 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a military battle between Hamas and Fatah over the Gaza strip so it should be called the Battle of Gaza (2007), te 2007 added cause there where more battles of Gaza. The Honorable Kermanshahi 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Violations[edit]

  1. The level of detail in this section exceeds that of the rest of the article. Undue weight.
  2. One of the incidents is already reported in the article, above.
  3. The combination of the four or five or six details into one section constitutes WP:Original Research. It is an original synthesis.

Note, I am not claiming the material is inaccurate; just that it does not belong here. Jd2718 13:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:
  1. The level of detail for the rest of the article will be improved. I don't see undue weight even now but accept that more detail can be added elsewhere in the article.
  2. We can move it to the section that talks about Human right violations.
  3. Human Rights violation as part of such civil war are common. Human Rights Watch and the press are calling it as such and so there is no WP:OR invloved.
I am glad you agree that the material is accurate. I understand the reality is not convient to you (or to the people of Gaza) but this is the reality. we only report it in the most NPOV way possible. Zeq 13:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sweirki incident is already reported. And the rest is simply out of proportion with the level of detail in the article. Saying that it will be improved is at most vaguely interesting. It has not been improved. As written, the section placed undue weight on what is essentially a single fact (HRW's claim). We could, if you like, rewrite the claim to a single paragraph. That would keep it in the article, without the undue weight that a full, bulleted section carries. Jd2718 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are on the border of vandelizing the article. Improvments to other section will be done but first you need to stop the revert. Please be respecfull and self revert (or add) - feel free to edit the section but the level of detail (for encyclopdia) is reasonable and should not be used as an excuse to remove a section you disgree with (first you argued OR - now you claim something else...) Zeq 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote box adds no information not already present, but distorts the balance of the whole article, pushing a view that the most important aspect of these events is that Palestinians have committed crimes against other Palestinians. 62.56.90.91 09:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is one the most important things in this conflict, that the Rules of war are not followed internally not just against the isrealis. This means that innocent decent palestinian civilians are again the victims of human rights violations due to conflict in the region. Hypnosadist 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed information about an Israel human rights organization. Nothing coming from Israel on this situation will be near NPOV. Stick with international and accredited groups.

Page title[edit]

Why is the page title "Battle for Gaza (2007)" and not "Battle of Gaza (2007)"? "Battle for Gaza (2007)" is a one-sided page title with Hamas' point of view. It certainly is not from the Palestinian Authority's point of view. "Battle of Gaza (2007)" is a more neutral title and will also be similar to many of the countless other battles which are named similarly. Also, how can a page move by Batmanand be marked as a minor edit? --121.6.67.214 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Coup D'etat seems more accurate. Zeq 17:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Not going to move it (waiting for more input), but I think that's a better title for the article. -- False Prophet 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be Battle of Gaza. As it is most NPOV. Berlin in 1945 was also taken and still it's name on wiki is Battle of Berlin. As for Hamas coup d'etat it's not sourced fairly and it is currently only a Fatah accusation. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only Fatah calling it a coup d'etat. UK might have been the first country to call it that (re: article title on Forbes Friday) but several other countries are now. To be fair Hamas is calling the subequent Fatah action in the West Bank as a coup d'etat as well. Jon 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO if Hamas took both Gaza and the WB in a couple of days that would be a coup. A coup is when the whole government is seized, and Gaza is only a geographical part. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed the major difference between this and the normal coup's. In most cases either the coup attempt totally succeeds throughout the country (recent example: Fiji 2006), or else totally fails (recent example Venezula 2002), or (rarely) degenerates into a civil war. Here we seem to have a case in which the coup was totally successful in Gaza, while at the same time totally failed in the West Bank. Jon 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impresion is there has been no attempt on the westbank authority and the violence there came from antihamas forces. Coup d'etat is imprecise since hamas is the elected majority. Further we shouldn't judge shooting from one side or the other, in this article but just research it. Both parties have been involved in rather the same crimes, with the accusation of fatah clinging to power hardhandedly in gaza being pronounced. I suspect it is actually the reason behind the current interpalestinean animosity, a matter of precedent. Every war is characterised by attrocities and we have to try to accept it is always both sides living up to them.77.248.56.242 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my book if the elected majority party of the legislature forms a new government excluding the minority party sudenly it would be just as much a coup as if a minority party formed a new government excluding the majority party. I believe "counter coup" would be the approative terminology for the subseqent Fatah actions in the West Bank. Jon 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Background section seems rather too short. Shouldn't it begin with the skirmishes and repeated cease-fires, ceasefire collapses, etc, in May? 70.55.90.138 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debka as source[edit]

Debka is (IMHO) not a WP:RS source. Zeq 14:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can sometimes be unreliable, yes, however they have an uncanny ability to scoop others on things like this. I have a quote from a spokesman of the Popular Resistance Committees to Aaron Klein, who on the basis of his Wikipedia biography I hold reliable.topynate 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the archive of older edits to the discussion page?[edit]

Why has the older discussion to this page been blanked? Is there something in the older comments that is being suppressed? Valtam 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I guess this page is different than the Hamas - Fatah civil war page. Valtam 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to rename the section[edit]

I suggest to rename the section "Human rights violations" to "military crimes" as keeping human rights is too hard to expect during the war and what actually counts is better described as military crimes (POW killings, civil priperty seizure etc).--Dojarca 09:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way! these must be portrayed as what they are "Human rights violations" and "War crimes" these terms get used all the time about US and British forces they apply when Hamas toss people off 15 story buildings. Hypnosadist 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious consequences[edit]

This section reads like anti Hamas propoganda. It is about christians in Gaza. But christains are an insignificant minority of the Gaza population. The section begins

Christians can only continue living safely in the Gaza Strip if they accept Islamic law, including a ban on alcohol and on women roaming publicly without proper head coverings

, but it only becomes apparent later in the paragraph that this is a quote from an "Islamist militant leader". The section goes on to quote "Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya", but who exactly is Jihadia Salafiya, what is their influence, and what if any is their relationship with the Hamas.

The section is more a less a cut and paste job from an article by Aaron Klein in Jerusalem.

The section lacks any quotes from Hamas members, and says nothing about the position secular muslims. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. If you can find what this article needs, add it.--Flamgirlant 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But christains are an insignificant minority of the Gaza population" says it all really. (Hypnosadist) 10:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "says it all". Christains are 0.7% of the population of Gaza. Are they being persuted by the Hamas? It would not suprise me. But I have seen no evidence of it so far. What I do no is that secular moslems, especially women have been attacked by the Hamas in the past (before their takeover of the strip). But there is nothing about this in the article. Furthermore this section says nothing about Hamas, but about an obscure group called Jihadia Salafiya. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added line from the source that ties Hamas into this. As for secular moslems, please add any info you have on their problems under Hamas rule as that would be part of the religious consequences of this event. (Hypnosadist) 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be so kind as to adress the comments I made above, the question of undue wight being given to Christains, and the the use of a quote from Jihadia Salafiya in an sectin on the Hamas victory. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Klein and WorldNetDaily[edit]

I added the part about CIA intelligence docs a few days ago. I used Debka as a source, but it was pointed out to me that it is unreliable. However, the other source I found, WorldNetDaily, is a subject of some controversy here, and if you visit Talk:Aaron_Klein you'll find he likes to edit his own article a lot. As Abu Ali pointed out above, a lot of this article now contains claims sourced solely from Aaron Klein, who, reliable as he may be, is talking to people that are completely unknown on the net other than through him. Do we keep these claims and quotes, or not? topynate 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V states that we need multiple reliable sources for anything here. So find the sources and nything which is not supported by multiple reliable sources should be deleted. There is plenty of material around on Hamas' harrasment of secular Gazans in the past. But what I have seen since their victory in Gaza seems to suggest they intend to soft peddle on Islamic law for now in order to try to consolidate their control of the strip. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

Is the nominator going to finish off the nomination for Good Article tagging of this article?

Unfortunately the image Image:Palestinian_prisoners.jpg is not a fair use on this page, as the article is not about the TV station or its program. Is it possible to get a free image? GB 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair use in this case is acceptable "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", and in this case the image is used for identification on the programme's contents. If there is a free image available on the Internet which can replace this image then the fair use would be void. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But in this article the station or its program are not even mentioned, and the picture is used to illustrate the event, rather than the station. If the picture is used there has to be a fair use rationale in the article (or caption). Perhaps the particular station could be discussed as the only coverage. GB 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

This article should be improved more. Therefor I put an On Hold tag on it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

Imagine a person who is not familiar with Palestine Liberation Organization and Fatah-Hamas conflict want to read this article. As a separate article it should be complete and clear. But at present nobody can understand why this battle happened. I propose to pay attention to lead and background of 2006 Lebanon War.

1. Well written?: Expand lead per WP:LEAD and add something about the situation of Hamas and Fatah and their positions in the political system.
2. Factually accurate?: You have used news sites as source. Unfortunately some of these webpages like Yahoonews will disappeared while others like BBCNews will remain. So please check your sources and substitute impermanent sources with permanent ones.
I checked all of the references. Unfortunately in one case I encountered Page not found.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in coverage?: The background should contains something about Fatah-Hamas conflict so that everybody can understand the situation and the reason of the battle clearly.
I've not satisfied with the background.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral point of view?: It's not bad. Especially in the case of aftermath you can make it more NPOV. I suggest taking a look at Hamas official website, fatah official website and PLO official website.
5. Article stability? It's fine. You can remove the tag of current event.
6. Images?: It's fine.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most things now corrected!
This [1] shows that nothing has done!!!--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

WorldNetDaily[edit]

I question if this is a reliable source for any factual claims. A more respected and less politically-extreme newspaper would be a far better choice for referencing. Tim Vickers 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War[edit]

Reuters now calls this event as a civil war. See: [2] "They have been searching for Fatah men," said the official, Ibrahim Abu An-Naja, alleging Hamas has been carrying out nightly raids on homes since defeating Fatah forces in the territory in a brief civil war last month. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah accused of collaboration.[edit]

This article is seriously deficient, failing to explain why political differences between Fatah and Hamas led to bloodshed. Here's what the Washington Post said: "The presidential guard, comprising about 5,000 fighters, is the unit slated to receive the U.S. package of training and nonlethal military equipment. The money, arriving now, has prompted Hamas officials and fighters to refer to Fatah as the "Jew American Army" and "Zionist collaborators."" A report from Ynet suggests there is a serious rift between them: "Hani al-Hassan, senior presidential advisor says Gaza war was between Hamas and Fatah collaborators who aided Israel, US. Gunshots fired at al-Hassan's home following statements, Abbas dismisses him from his role". PRtalk 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget the accusations coming from the other side. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're refering to. In the meantime, improving the encyclopedia goes one step at a time - the RSs appear to claim that Israel was arming Fatah while laying siege to Hamas. Hamas (and even a Fatah minister, promptly sacked) took this to be collaboration. It's absurd that this article doesn't mention the main factor that seems to have provoked this near Civil War. PRtalk 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
everything you said was ok up to the last section which is incorrect OR, the coup being a result of Hamas calling out Fatah on what they believe to be collaboration is not "what seems to have provoked this near civil war", not even close.
p.s. fath has accused hamas of quite number of things as part of their conflict.JaakobouChalk Talk 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you're refering too - is this article part of the fact-free zone we have to defend? Why are we bandying this stuff around in Talk instead of getting on and writing this encyclopedia? Clearly, accusations of collaboration by Hamas were a significant part of this affair - as was the fact that Israel/US was giving Fatah more guns and laying siege to Hamas. I'm not sure what else was significant - other than you seem to be saying that much of what I edited in was alright. Why was it reverted out if it was alright? PRtalk 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The american funding of Fatah is clearly important and was mentioned alot at the time and was in this article and should be in here. (Hypnosadist) 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit did not fully reflect your sources. The first is just accusations from Hamas, there is no mention of Israeli aid to Fatah, just of the US funding of the palestinian presidential guard. The rest are the claims of Hamas and should be reflected as such. Truth is not as important as verifiability. Narson 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the rules of WP, my edit cannot fully reflect my sources, otherwise it would be a copyvio. Nevertheless, I'd started to provide a part of the explanation of this mini-war. That improvement of the article has been summararily reverted, and it still contains no mention of "collaboration", which is certainly one of the problems (and probably the major grouse of Hamas). As I said, the article is seriously deficient. It would be much, much better if my contribution was left in place and added to/adjusted. PRtalk 19:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. No. By the rules of WP your edit cannot be a direct copy, but it must reflect your sources. I would say adding more poorly sourced and possibly OR conclusions is not the improvement you believe it to. More is not always better. Narson 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if good, thoughtful, work was taken out of this article, leaving a gaping hole and an article that is deficient. My edit reflected significant parts of my sources and didn't appear to distort the remainder. I'm not going to waste my time battling to improve articles if consensus is opposed to improving them. PRtalk 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know enough about these events to fix the problems, but I can be positive that the article is deficient in ways sufficient to seriously distort the understanding of any visitor. PRtalk 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd propose would be something along the lines of:
"Conflict between Fatah and Hamas had been simmering since Hamas won the legislature elections in January 2006. Sanctions and other international actions, including the US funding of the Presidential Guard to protect President Abbas, were aimed at strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's position and forcing Hamas to fundamentally change its aims."
Or we could have its own little paragraph:
"Conflict between Fatah and Hamas had been simmering since Hamas won the legislature elections in January 2006. Sanctions and other international action were aimed at strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's position and forcing Hamas to fundamentally change its aims.
Hamas accused Fatah of receiving military aid from the Israeli and American administration due to the US funding and training provided to the Palestinian president's guard, controlled by Fatah leader (and Palestinian president), Mahmoud Abbas."
Obvious both need the refs put in. Either of those float your boat?Narson 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "collaboration" has to be prominently in there, a feature more important than slavery to the Civil War. Otherwise, we're simply not providing a narrative of the event. When you say "change their aims", you're actually saying "abandon their religion-justified purpose" and do what Israel wanted of them under the new guns of the rather more secular Fatah. Collaboration (paying and arming) has been a constant theme to Palestinians almost since the arrival of the first immigrants in 1882 - and has attracted the death penalty for how long - 80 years?
The second clip I offered from Ynet provides one of the more subtle twists - Palestinians (reminded by a top Fatah man) were acutely aware of what it was about - but actually speaking a word so loaded was intolerable. (Sorry to have to re-format your post - something happened to blank this page when I first put in this last entry). PRtalk 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration is a loaded word and we can come up for less POV terms for 'working with'. Especially as the sources are reporting what one group says about the other group or about a move to fund and organise the Palestinian Presidential Guard. I don't recall the sources listed stating that was support for Fatah in general (Just that Hamas claimed it was evidence of some systematic conspiracy against them). Seperating fact (That the US funded a group whose designated role was to protect Mahmoud Abbas) from claim (That this was done because he is the leader of fatah rather than him being president of the palestinian authority, other claims about support etc). Narson 07:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course collaboration is a loaded word - it's also a capital crime for Palestinians. The sources I'm seeing say that this is what this Civil War was about, suspicion of (and effectively, the practise of) taking money/guns from Israel with which to dominate and kill other Palestinians. Lets have articles that actually describe (or at least, very heavily hint at) what is really going on. PRtalk 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loaded but irelevant the conflict in Gaza. Israel did not armed gaza. Hamas exctive force had more weapon. Zeq 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was an article in Vanity Fair which claimed the US, Israel and Fatah were attempting a coup to topple Hamas. It was based on leaked US documents and corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine. Here's the money quote from the article: 'David Wurmser, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.'Wodge (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source about amnesty[edit]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1192380636961 Zeq 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Palestinian prisoners.jpg[edit]

Image:Palestinian prisoners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name issue again[edit]

This really should not be called the "Battle of Gaza, but the Battle for Gaza. question: Isn't a battle generally only a part of a larger war? Is Hamas at war with Fatah? If so, would this Battle for Gaza be part of an ongoing larger Hamas-Fatah war? Was it a one-battle war? Stellarkid (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas took control or comitted Coup d'état?[edit]

"Hamas took control" sounds like rotation agreement, while in fact it was millitary Coup d'état. Netanel h (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. nableezy - 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? please explain your opnion. Netanel h (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename?[edit]

Concerning the recent rename[3] was there any discussion or rename vote here that I missed. Concerning this particular Battle of Gaza which took place in 2007. As it is widely known in RS.--PLNR (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply. Add ", June 2007" --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three discussion on this talk page concerning the article title, and you decided you can just renamed a six years old article based on whim, without discussion or consensus, and now that I can just make adjustments as I see fit?! I am reverting to the long standing title. If you still support the rename, please use the relevant template to discuss, gain consensus and make it official.
Furthermore, please note Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Naming conventions and that "Fatah-Hamas battle in Gaza" result in 937,000 results, while the original returns About 5,130,000 results. --PLNR (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Consensus to retain the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Gaza (2007) → Fatah–Hamas battle in Gaza, June 2007 – There have been numerous Battles of Gaza. The title should be unambiguous, clear, and reflect the content of the title. At the time, Battle of Gaza was an obvious title. Now it is ambiguous. Rather than place it between unrelated Israeli-Palestinian battles and other international battles, the proposed name is a simple alternative and the most specific. The date is not necessary, but helpful Wickey-nl (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The current title provides perfectly adequate disambiguation, see WP:PRECISION, and Battle of Megiddo for a similar case. PatGallacher (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battle of Gaza" may be ambiguous, but "Battle of Gaza (2007)" does not appear to be, based on the contents of the dab Battle of Gaza. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely true, but at last the question is if the title reflects the content of the article. To choose an ambiguous title because such were used elsewhere is a rather poor argument. Ambiguous in WP terms is different from general meaning, that is distinct it from other articles. Current title will be on the dab anyway. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, there have been numerous Battles of Gaza; but there has only been one notable Battle of Gaza in the year 2007, hence the title of this article "Battle of Gaza (2007)". IJA (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

sourcing[edit]

British involvement[edit]

In the first paragraph is built solely on Crookes view, mostly expressed in the bottom three paragraphs in the linked article. While I understand his reasoning in how it led to the decline of EU's influence and didn't allow exploring other alternatives concerning the Peace process. I don't really see him making any direct connection between it and Battle of Gaza. I would appreciate a source that make that connection directly, and or alternative/additional concerning the situation.--PLNR (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, Crookes view is based on the Palestine Papers. The controversial point is in fact how to name it: a Hamas coup, a Hamas pre-emptive coup, a failed Fatah coup?
The connection with the F-H conflict is obvious. US/EU meddled in the conflict by taking Fatah's side against Hamas. The connection with the Roadmap is also obvious. Would a simple plan for implementation have been kept secret, or was the plan kept secret because it was a crackdown on Hamas? No contradiction. Additional sources are of course welcome. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Crookes' view is based on the Palestine Papers, I am asking if it is the only view or a majority view..
Also security plans are confidential by nature everywhere and while US/EU support of the Palestinian authority, promoting Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and dialogue, while trying to undermine actions that promote violence(the issues noted in thereport "suicide bombing, weapons smuggling, Qassam rockets and 'terror finance"' and detention of religious and other figures that promote incitment to such actions) might seem like a nefarious conspiracy to you, and very likely used by Hamas to legitimize their actions. It also very common practice in international and domestic policies, so while Crooke spoke about how this effected the Peace process, I am still waiting for someone to directly make the conclusion as to how it effected the Battle of Gaza. --PLNR (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbas/Fatah plan to replace the government[edit]

The section title and first paragraph seem to be an original research based on the leaked paper titled "Palestinian Vision for Resolving the Current PA Crisis".

Which ignore what stated in the document that this is plan to "re-establish and reinvigorate our partnership with the international community on the basis of international law and legitimacy". In case no agreement between the factions is reached, since it the current harmful situation cannot go on indefinitely.

Why we need additional WP:RS sources to weed out the bias.--PLNR (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian involvement?[edit]

Someone worked hard to emphasis the British, US, Israeli, arab state involvement in favor of Fatah, in any way possible, but reading some of the linked articles, it seems that quotes were selectively picked from sources, on one hand using comments concerning USA on the other hand ignoring comments concerning Iran helping arm and fund Hamas political and military activities.--PLNR (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought to address some of those issues in couple of ways. First I have went over the sources and added opposing views in a chronological order. I have merged the section dealing with "British involvement" and "US\ISrael\Arabs involvement" involvement into one. Lastly I summarized several sources about specific deals into one speaking to a policy(Please check I didn't missed any important detail[4]) Hopefully the section should now reflect the power struggle that led to this Battle of Gaza in a more concise way then before. --PLNR (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reference to this statement or else remove it[edit]

In the preceding period, the US and Israel apparently strengthened Fatah's military power to topple Hamas. Kirtimaansyal (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Gaza (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Gaza (2007). 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:

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) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Gaza (2007). 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:

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) 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018 'Audit' of article[edit]

1) Lede: The Battle is referred to as a 'climax' in the Hamas-Fatah conflict. That term, meaning a 'the most intense or important point; a culmination' is not supported in the quoted source and appears to be a subjective judgement. While important, it was certainly no culmination. My suggestion would be to rather use the less judgemental 'a prominent event'. Altered accordingly. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) "Palestinian Authority": Paragraph 4: "Mahmoud Abbas was under pressure by the international community, who considered Hamas' unacceptable" This sentence appears to be incorrect because I could not find any sources or other evidence that Kenya, Costa Rica, Namibia, South Africa, Iran, India, Indonesia, etc, etc, find Hamas to be unacceptable. = More pro-Israeli WP:BIAS Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed 'international community' to the far more accurate 'Quartet'.
Uncertain even of the reality of 'Quartet sanctions'against the Hamas government. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3) General structure: This article is complete structural mess with duplications of the same theme under different sub-sections, especially in 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, which are not logically interlinked. This makes for painful non-encyclopaedic reading and the effective obscuring of the key elements.

4) "International community": This term is improperly used in many places and fails to reflect the provided source. I can only conclude that it is unacceptable WP:OR The concept 'international sanctions' is equally without substance. This is a nasty case of WP:BIAS editing, inserting unsupported POVs that the countries of the world disapproved of the democratically elected Hamas government. Awaiting comment to the contrary. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to 4 - per my understanding of International recognition of the State of Palestine, the vast majority of the countries of the world recognize the PA (headed by the Abbas) the legitimate government of all of the PA - including Gaza. Who exactly recognizes Hamas as the rightful government (Iran? Sudan? And .... ?)?Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfam claim[edit]

The article presents a claim from a press release by Oxfam at face value [5]. I do not think that Oxfam is a reliable source for this sort of political question. So, if the claim is reinserted it should be done using a better source, such as a newspaper. Given the complexity of this legal dispute, this particular article about a battle probably isn't the best place to feature it. Instead, it could possibly be discussed in the article about Israel's relation to Gaza. OtterAM (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its clearly WP:UNDUE.We need secondary WP:RS to include those claims--Shrike (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfam was just used for the fact that Israel is withholding the tax revenue. Upon reviewing the second source it shouldnt be used for calling it illegal. Im fine with the wording as of now, but the Oxfam source should be returned. Yall seriously need to reexamine your thinking if you think barring Oxfam is going to fly. If yall really want to challenge it as a source Im happy to take it to RSN. nableezy - 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfam is a reliable source only for the opinions of Oxfam. The witholding of taxes was in response to violations (e.g. attacking Israel) and delinquent Palestinian payments (e.g. not paying the electricity bill in full) from the Palestinian side - a balanced presentation would go into the various claims and counter claims here - or alternatively, as presently, not go into them at all.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OtterAM (talk · contribs) - here are his justifications for his (gender?) revert: He has a subjective view that a) Oxfam, which has been active in the OPTs since the 1950s and physically established there since the 1980s, is less capable as an experienced NGO of forming political opinions than "a newspaper". I think that we can safely interpret that as POV, especially given the lack of verifiable substantiation. Next OtterAM claims (again without substantiation) that b) deletion is justified because Oxfam "has a complicated relation with Israel". I wonder if he knew that Oxfam does not support boycotts of Israeli - so the 'relation' is not remotely radical. If the deletion were to be justified solely on the basis that the organisation has been critical of Israel, then, so as to preserve a level playing field (neutrality), we will need to trawl Wiki for all sources which have had a "complicated relationship with Palestine" such as the Algemeiner (see Israeli advocacy), CAMERA (an anti-Palestinian advocacy group), AIPAC ("defending ALL IDF action in 2014"), Commentary (magazine) (see the Balint comment), Palestine Media Watch, Honest Reporting, etc. So are we going to strive for a level playing field by also trashing all of those sources and is there going to be the mother of all edit wars and a willful destruction based on "complicated relations"? I suggest that instead we trash that (non) reason also. c) He claims that the Oslo Accords (the "existing International Agreement") allow Israel to withhold the tax and revenue – all of it in the case being discussed. That is a total fabrication. The Paris Protocol (in Oslo II) of 1994 allowed Israel to withhold 3% as a collection/admin fee … no more. Fact. [1] And with that all of OtterAM's "justifications" are refuted.
Shrike (talk · contribs) 'agrees' (?) that the illegality of Israels 100% withholding in 2006-2007 is UNDUE. Why? Who knows - an unsupported subjective POV. And the reason is that it means that the complete withholding of the Hamas-led PA revenue, in violation of existing agreements (Oslo II), as a significant source of tension build-up to the Battle, can be summarily dismissed with an ‘UNDUE’? Are we all OK with that casual approach to deletion, because I vehemently oppose such subjective justification.
icewhiz (talk · contribs) gives another POV that Oxfam’s opinion as to what exists in international agreements should not be included. No reason given. He also posits that the fact that there were mutual violations of the ceasefire (see timeline in Journal of Palestinian Studies) as justifying withholding is yet another subjective and unsubstantiated POV. With Fatah being supported by Israel at the time, the withholding of revenue from the Hamas-led PA is clearly a major source of tension building contributing to the ‘Battle’, which Icewhiz, Shrike and OtterAM appear to want to be hidden from record. Why?

I agree with Nableezy (talk · contribs), a habit has been progressively developing of reverting text with sources, based on ultra-brief and largely subjective RS, BRD, UNDUE, SYNTH, claims, and some arbitration is required on what is perhaps one of the more controversial topic areas in all of Wiki.

Oxfam source is only reliable for Oxfam's opinion. In reality, Israel has the prerogative to collect taxes from the PA according to the Oslo accords. And even if Oxfam's statement is restored with proper attribution, it needs another sentence explaining Israel's position to counterbalance the POV (or explaining why such taxes were witheld at the time).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took is to RS/N. It is absurd yall think removing Oxfam is acceptable, especially with the sourcing that I see you use elsewhere. Absolutely absurd. nableezy - 19:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ UNCTAD (2015). "Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (PDF).

Recent Reverts - "The Pattern"[edit]

On 1 July 2018 Yaniv once again did a "fly-by" revert of sourced material "justified" with his now usual unsubstantiated type of POV related to WP:RS - "Jimmy Carter and ADDAMER (sic) ("Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association") are not reliable sources to state facts, let alone attributed.) His role in "the pattern" is now established beyond any doubt. I seriously object to this type of repeated vandalism. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA please. Neither of these sources would qualify as a WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to show where you have successfully argued this POV. I could not find any RS doubts regarding Carter. In fact in 139 and 185 I found quite the contrary. Regarding Addameer, I could not find any criticism. So please substantiate your POV, because otherwise your comment is without substance. The Pattern? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addameer is an advocacy group. WP:ONUS on you to show they are RS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I therefore presume that you have no problem with the positive reviews of Jimmy Carter on the RS:Noticeboard?
Regarding Addameer, yes, they admit that they are an advocacy group - "Offers free legal aid to political prisoners, advocates their rights at the national and international level, and works to end torture and other violations of prisoners' rights through monitoring, legal procedures and solidarity campaigns.” And so? I would have thought that this makes them ideal sources in this regard - monitoring, legal, etc. In addition, where does Wiki prohibit attributed references to advocacy groups? I could not find it anywhere, and I really tried. Are you positive that they are prohibited? To ban Addameer on the grounds of its work for Palestinians would be like banning the Israeli Ministry of the Interior for advocating Israeli rights. And banning Addameer for affiliations would be like banning AIPAC for the same reason. Level playing fields make for good balance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we are ignoring Avi Shlaim's analysis of the Palestine Papers from which he too concluded that the Hamas action in Gaza was a counter-coup. Was he also not RS? If so, why? If not, then we are fine and the text can be returned, not so Icewhiz (talk · contribs). So please tell me why attributed Shlaim analysis on the coup issue is not RS. Many thanks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stmt reverted in our article was not attributed, it was in wikivoice. If we were discusing an "according to Addameer ... " it would be an attributed stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So I will attribute Addameer and Carter is fine. Since Yaniv has not responded to any of my Talk requsts, I presume there is consensus that his "are not reliable sources to state facts, let alone attributed" referring to Addameer has not found favour. The claim that Carter is not RS, even if attributed, is of course utterly without substance. That further pattern of unsubstantiated reverts is noted. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Number of casulaties[edit]

The number of casulaties is wrong according to wafa a pna affiliated news agency 416 people of them fighters in the Palestinian National Security Forces and Civilians[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Mohmad (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://info.wafa.ps/ar_page.aspx?id=9198

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2020[edit]

Opening sentence of first paragraph, delete added word "the": "The Battle of Gaza, also referred to as Hamas' takeover of Gaza, was a military conflict between Fatah and Hamas, that took place in the Gaza Strip between (delete)the(delete) June 10 and 15, 2007." Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Durdyfiv1[reply]

 Done WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 07:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strength[edit]

Why isn't there a "strength" part between the "Units involved" and "Casualties and losses" in the infobox? Aminabzz (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023[edit]

Minor typo: "the "unfair is written, one of the quotation marks should be removed Domotorp (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done In the original BBC article, the words "unfair conditions" are in double quotes. To avoid confusion with the enclosing quotation marks, I put the two words in single quotes instead. Liu1126 (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the revert of Dovidroth[edit]

@Dovidroth reverted my edits. I suggest we undo their revert.

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

A summary of my changes which I propose we restore:

1. Specifying the group that Fatah lost the elections to in the introduction.

2. Reorganized a paragraph to flow better with the rest of the section and presented analysis from secondary sources in contrast to the "hearsay" style of writing in the original.

3. Added a quote from the editor of the second largest circulation publication in Israel.

I suggest we restore my changes. DMH43 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current text:
As a result of the battle, Hamas took complete control of Gaza. The pro-Fatah view is, that it was a plain military coup by Hamas. The pro-Hamas view is, that the US drew up a plan to arm Fatah cadres with the aim of forcefully removing Hamas from power in Gaza. According to the pro-Hamas view, Fatah fighters, led by commander Mohammed Dahlan with logistical support from the US Central Intelligence Agency, were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas.[1] Then, Hamas pre-emptively took control over Gaza.
My proposed change:
As a result of the battle, Hamas quelled a US-backed coup attempt and consolidated its control over Gaza.[2][3][4][5] Fatah fighters, led by commander Mohammed Dahlan with logistical support from the US Central Intelligence Agency, were planning to carry out a coup against Hamas who had recently won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election.[1][2] In contrast, the pro-Fatah view is, that it was a plain military coup by Hamas[citation needed].
DMH43 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b This ‘Bombshell’ Took a Year Falling. Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani, Inter Press Service, 2 April 2008
  2. ^ a b "The Gaza Bombshell". Vanity Fair. 2008-03-03. Retrieved 2023-12-23.
  3. ^ International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Hamas Coup in Gaza” (2007)
  4. ^ Björn Brenner, Gaza under Hamas: From Islamic democracy to Islamist governance (London: 2017), pp. 35–40
  5. ^ Ed O’Loughlin, “Hopeless in Gaza,” Sydney Morning Herald (23 June 2007).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)&oldid=1221749008"