Jump to content

Talk:2018–2019 Gaza border protests/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Scope of this article

It is not clear to me what the scope of this article is. The initial aim was to describe the events between 30 March and 15 May. Yet, the article has now become a version of "List of events in the Israel-Gaza conflict 2018". This is not what the page is for, to my mind. For one thing, if we are to include events past May, we should also include events prior to March, which this page largely doesn't do.

Here's a suggestion: the scope of this page should be defined as the time period 30 March to 15 May, and reactions directly related to those events. So, if the Israeli government or the UN release a report after 15 May dealing with the events of this period, we can include it. Obviously, nothing in the Israel-Palestine conflict is disconnected from everything else, so we can mention things before and after that period, but in a radically compressed summary, and to the extent that it is connected to this period. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment, this article describe the "Great March of Return" which is still active. Today the Marchers comity have said the marth is still on https://twitter.com/alamnews55/status/1018802938624475137. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.58.241 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Marches and protests happen all the time in Gaza and the West Bank. Unless the scope of this article is defined, it's going to sprawl more and more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that they are still labeling on-going events as part of the same march. I would give a few weeks and see if it peters out (or flares up) following the latest exchange of fire on 14th July and the understanding between Israel/Gaza following the exchange. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
They can call it whatever they want. They probably also call everything which happened after 1948 as one unbroken story. We don't have to follow their terminology. I am not aware of the following basic facts: how many tents are still there after 15 May? What's the average size of the crowd, and how does it compare to pre-May 15? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The tents were never the "main" thing - which was the confrontation at the fence. From a pure editorial standpoint, events following May 15th meet GNG (including the heavy exchange of fire on 14 July - which was the largest exchange post 2014) - so we'll just end up splitting this article in two. It will be easier to decide on scoping in a month or two.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I second Kingsindian's proposal. It is a sensible break, since we are already way over the normal extreme end for article length, and these marches are going to continue for the foreseeable future.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Icewhiz that we should wait and see how the situation develops before making changes to the article.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 07 11 2018

In the Timeline: add a new section 17 May 2018: Palestinian have open heavy machine-gun fire from Gaza on the city of Sderot, to which Israel responded with a strike hit a Hamas military compound and a weapons production facility. [1] 5.144.49.77 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Anecdote without notability to the event as a whole. Article says nothing about the damage (if any at all) caused, except for stating that there were no casualties. Can't help but notice that the article you provided frames everything done by Israel or the IDF as a response to violent aggression from Palestinians; we should use more detached and neutral sources for Israel/Palestine articles, as everything about them is already so contentious and controversial. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨, Do I understand correctly that you called as anecdote JPost's 'IDF hits Hamas targets in Gaza following gunfire to Sderot, troops' article[1] mentioning in it "the heavy machine-gun fire from Gaza on the city of Sderot"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering how this statement was a footnote of the article cited and it was mentioned how there were no injuries, wounds, or fatalities, yes, this is an WP:UNDUE anecdote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b IDF hits Hamas targets in Gaza following gunfire to Sderot, troops

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

In the opening paragraph: Replace the vague and referenceless second part of the sentence "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][14] a number of whom have been members of various Palestinian militant organizations;" with the actual number (50) that Hamas claims to have been active members, followed by the appropriate citation (which already exists in the bibliography and used as reference elsewhere).

New sentence suggestion: "At least 110 Palestinians were killed between 30 March to 15 May,[28][14] 50 of them confirmed by Hamas to have been active members of the organization.[175][176][177]"

Those reference numbers are valid and were taken from the bibliography.

Thanks, Eyal ~There were better times. (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: This has been discussed at length above. The Vice article referenced in our article decontructs the propaganda around this particular point. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

you using "propaganda" does show you got bias and POV towards the article itself. Other people here should request another administrator for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.139 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In the infobox

Can you please mention in the infobox that the numbers of the killed and the injured in the Palestinian side include members of militant organizations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A042:4F8F:7188:7245:86EB:E256 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

+ 1Sokuya (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Need a better source than the ITIC sorry. nableezy - 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Map of Gaza Strip

The visual of File:Map of Gaza Strip with no-go zone 2012.jpg remind me OCHAoPT's map. So there is an 2017 updated version map of Gaza Strip created by OCHAoPT's and according to commons:Template:PD-UN-map it's free to use and upload to Wikimedia commons. Maybe we should replace it with the one inside the article? Sokuya (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the most biased thing I have ever seen, worse even than Al Jazeera

Of course the events were caused by the protests, those people who sat peacefully hundreds of meters from the fence, but those people are not the main point of the article. The protests have been used for the main events, what the article is ACTUALLY talking about. What attracted international media attention was the CLASHES between thousands of people who entered the no-go zone and stormed the border, many armed with stones and Molotov cocktails, and some even with guns and explosives devices, and the Israeli soldiers. The fact that there were also some people who were far from the fence and were hurt does not matter - in every conflict in the world innocent people are hurt. The excuses I see here above for calling these events "protests" are ridiculous. If any other country in the world would deal with thousands of people, armed with various of violent means, some of them members of militant groups, storming the border from a territory run by an Islamic fundamentalist organization you would call it at least "riots". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A041:4F8F:21EE:72A9:40B1:8D5B (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

And the dozens of highly reputable international media organizations who call them protests – are they all biased as well?
You might consider whether when it feels like the entire world is biased against you, it might actually be you who is biased. Your summary of the events above is dripping with widely-debunked propaganda themes. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read this detailed Vice article which might help balance your understanding of the events. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
"which might help balance" - Onceinawhile, are you serious? Even after such passage "As a Gaza resident informed Amira Hass, the respected Israeli journalist" as an argument in this article? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
She is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Women's Media Foundation. “Respected Israeli journalist” underplays her achievements. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
For whom? :( I'm not sure that this is not her another «Defamation case»:

Hass said that she had brought forward sourced information from the Palestinian community and said that it was the responsibility of newspaper editors to cross-reference it with other information from the IDF and the settler community.[17]

Any way, I'd suggest to find a more reliable source & authors for a generalizing article than your one. --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Onceinawhile is perfectly correct. For a century, every time archives have been opened up, the flood of rhetorical reportage for any past event spinning this tragedy as Arabs invariably attacking Jews/Israelis has collapsed. I am reminded of the prophetic dictum concerning just one example (Be'ersheva but meant to generalize accounts of other 'events' like Gaza) penned by Daniel Boyarin and his brother Jonathan Boyarin Insistence on ethnic speciality, when it is extended over a particular piece of land, will inevitably produce a discourse not unlike the Inquisition in many of its effects. The archives of the Israeli General Security Services will one day prove this claim eminently, although already we "know" the truth. p.712
The alert reader knows that 95% of reportage is crap. The wiki editor just has to 'balance' things, knowing that it's like lumping a ton of manure on the scales to even out a few grams of odorless facts, whose specific gravity gives them a comparable weight, hoping the attentive reader can detect the qualitative difference.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No news :) As usual, Nishidani has found yet someone who tries to equate Nazi & Israeli governments.

This passage was assailed by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, Director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism,[8] who accused Boyarin of lacking "lucid thinking", as well as of "bias" for having drawn an analogy between the Nazi Holocaust and the Israeli government's conduct toward the Palestinians.[9]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
What a wonderful thing Google is. You don't have to read anything. If you find an argument you dislike, rather than familiarize yourself with the work of the author(s), you google what they said to click on any source which criticizes it, and then that is 'proof' the original view is invalidated. I won't even check what Rosenfeld wrote, because I've read closely from top to bottom the paper by the Boyarins, where they specifically disavow any attempts to equate the Israeli government with Nazism.

We are not comparing Israeli practice to Nazism, for that would occlude more than it reveals and would obscure the real, imminent danger of its becoming the case in the future.'p.712

Don't reply, please. You don't appear to read these things except through googled fav criticisms, so argufying with someone who does so is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's me who decides when to reply to your selective (as usual) quoting & fantasies about your opponent.
So one can see what Rosenfeld and Boyarin wrote:

Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity by Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin: We are not comparing Israeli practice to Nazism, for that would occlude more than it reveals and would obscure the real, imminent danger of its becoming the case in the future; the use of Lebensraum rhetoric on the part of mainstream Israeli politicians and the ascent to respectability and a certain degree of power of fascist parties in Israel certainly provide portents of this happening. Our argument is rather for an as yet realized but necessary theoretical compatability between Zionist ideology and the fascism of state ethnicity. Capturing Judaism in a state transforms entirely the meanings of its social practices. Practices that in Diaspora have one meaning-for example, caring for the feeding and housing of Jews and not "others"-have entirely different meanings under political hegemony.

Rosenfeld quoted Daniel Boyarin with disapprobation for having written: "Just as Christianity may have died at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor ... so I fear that my Judaism may be dying at Nablus, Deheishe, Beteen (Beth-El) and El-Khalil (Hebron)."[6] Rosenfeld accuses Boyarin of lacking "lucid thinking" as well as "bias" for having drawn an analogy between the Nazi Holocaust and the Israeli government's conduct toward the Palestinians.[6]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Neturei Karta image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clearly to remove. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently this page features a picture of Neturei Karta men in recognizably Orthodox Jewish attire holding a sign that says "FREEDOM for GAZA and ALL OF PALESTINE", and showing a map of all of Israel and the Palestinian terr-s colored in the Palestinian flag, and another sign that says "Judaism and Zionism are Diametrically Opposed". Should this picture be allowed to be on this page? Please vote Keep or Remove and explain your reasoning. --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging people I see signed on this page, feel free to add anyone I miss : @יניב הורון, Nishidani, Icewhiz, Onceinawhile, Ynhockey, WarKosign, Wumbolo, Sokuya, Igorp lj, Kingsindian, Zero0000, Scaleshombre, Nableezy, ShimonChai, Brendon the Wizard, Bolter21, and Oncontour:
The reader, however, is not aware of this, and for the reader the picture is accomplishing two purposes -- (1) a token visibly Jewish contingent denying the right of Jews to inhabit Israel (the reader is not going to be aware of how insanely unrepresentative they are), and (2) an advertisement for Neturei Karta, a quite marginal group. Neither of these is even remotely in line with wiki policy, and are much more adhering to violations of WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE. With regards to the first point, neither attempts to mitigate the conference (before that Duke spoke was revealed [[2]]) nor "fringe views progress civilization" engage with this, while the argument that calling Israel is illegitimate is not fringe overall misses the point that they are making a Jewish argument that Israel is illegitimate and their grounds for that argument include the (arguably masochistic) tenet that any Jewish suffering even up to the Holocaust are "divine will" and therefore not kosher to try to reduce. Okay, I confess I'm not some Halakhic scholar but based on what I do know of the Jewish faith this seems incredibly fringe. Lastly, I believe this RfC should have precedent for the usage of this image elsewhere. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody denies Neturei Karta is a fringe group, rejected by both mainstream Orthodox and secular Jews. However, picture is attributed to them, not simply "Orthodox Jews", so a reader who wants to know who they are have a link to find out. I really don't mind so much this image with the current caption, but I get your point.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I did get a little caught up on this (… not sure it deserved the RfC, on second thought... my apologies for the pings, sincerely). My thinking was along the lines that not many readers are going to click that link. --Calthinus (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment. If you believe that, you subscribe to the principle: All photos accompanying public events covered by Wikipedia that contain images of public protests violate WP:SOAP, and must automatically be removed. That is patent bullshit of course, and has zero to do with Wikipedia policy. If it were, you should immediately remove, for starters, 7 jpgs from Gilad Shalit which illustrate public events asking for his release. Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

At present we have 4 pictures from international events - to one from events in Gaza (we also have a photo of the fence and burnt fields). This article is about events in Gaza - and photographs should primarily be from in and about Gaza - not from various international events.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Answer the point, don't duck, or switch the reasons for objection when your first collapses. You stated 'Showing pictures of protests, and the messages therein, is (soapboxing).' You know, like every wikipedian that this is utter rubbish: umpteen articles show protest photos or demonstrations, and the demonstrations are connected to the border. So what's the point of making such a silly argument on behalf of exclusion, when it has no basis in policy or practice?
Therefore the situations are identical, but you are making an exception if the 'victim' is Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The situations are not "identical". The protests regarding Gilad Shalit were actually about the topic. But the Neturei Karta signs are also or in fact primarily about something else -- Zionism. Their signs don't mention the Gaza border affair at all. It is inserting commentary about the legitimacy of Israeli statehood into an article that is not about that. --Calthinus (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, is it Nishidai's data above correct?
Gaza War (2008–09): "dozen photos of Israel being 'attacked' by Hamas, and a couple of damage to Gaza" @ Nishidani
  • Gaza: Destroyed building in Rafah + Explosion in Gaza + Damage to the Zeitoun + Phosphorus cluster bombs + Palestinians in a Gaza city + Al Jazeera video + Destroyed buildings in Gaza + A satellite-based damage assessment of the Gaza Strip + Tent camp, Gaza Strip; Destroyed buildings in Gaza = 8
  • Israel: Grad rocket hitting Beersheba + Kindergarten classroom in Beersheba + Repairs being made to water pip + Israelis running to bomb shelters + rocket attacks placed up to 800,000 people = 5
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict "two photos of protests in Berlin and Helsinki" @ Nishidani
  • Quds Day 2014 pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin + pro-Israel demonstration in Helsinki - so what?
Israeli disengagement from Gaza, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers - what is it so unusual in a fact that significant (key word) parts - up to hundreds of thousands, of Israeli society use their right to demonstrate for or against?
--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In response to Nishidani: Even though I do not agree that we need to remove the picture of NK, I especially disagree with the rationale you provided. It's very easy for someone to appear to be arguing against the opposing view when you're strawmanning them. Knowingly or unknowingly, that was just a bad argument: nobody even gave the appearance of an assertion that by definition all photos of protests are WP:SOAP. However, that doesn't mean that which images we do and do not display can absolutely be for WP:SOAP purposes, and I have reason to believe part of you knew this when you argued. It's possible to cherrypick the most extreme examples of one side being violent, downplay how many images we show of that same side being injured or killed, and create the illusion to any casual reader scrolling through the article was the opposite of what actually happened. Images in an article, just like the text of an article, are there to summarize it. Omission and inclusion can be equally charged, and all weight should be balanced. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It's refreshing to hav editors who disagree, with an intelligible argument. I don't willingly create strawman arguments, there are far too many silly arguments for someone like myself to invent even sillier ones. I look at the operational and logical significance of arguments. And when I read:

As well as other protest images that have nothing (almost) to do with the events in Gaza. Showing pictures of protests, and the messages therein, in some of these is essentially WP:SOAPBOXing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I remarked (a) that an image of a protest over the Border Protests cannot be dismissed as having 'nothing' (almost) with the Border Protests in Gaza. To do so is in-your-face logical absurdity and (b) that to state 'showing pictures of protests (and the messages displayed) is essentially WP:SOAPBOXING,' is unambiguous in its implications: i.e. for the editor, it is legitimate to remove any protest picture and the message protestors are seen to make on the grounds its presence constitutes propaganda for a cause. That is absolutely dissonant with wiki policies. It would mean, operationally, censoring and excluding all protest photos. I take people at their written word. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I could see how a small minority of images, in proper balance, or international protests about the events in Gaza could be relevant. However, it is illogical for these to be a large proportion of the photographs in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove The NK are fringe yet savvy at branding themselves, because they are ultra orthodox Litvak Jews who make inflammatory statements. I think WP:SOAP is a difficult policy to enforce in general, when mere coverage of this topic is weaponized. Otherwise, all photos of Gaza solidarity protests outside of Gaza ought to be removed.
I specifically would support removing NK, since they do not reflect mass movements. If you want to cover anti/critical Zionist Jews, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, J-Street, All That's Left etc... would be better choices. There is obviously a history of anti Zionist Orthodox Jews as seen here Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism --Shushugah (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Replace NK image, do not remove all of the images or text relating to them Still include the text that mentions NK with sources, but replace the photo with some other international solidarity march. Images, like text, are here to provide an accurate summary of the event and its more important or interesting points, but featuring a random fringe group that, for strictly religious reasons, believes Israel cannot be formed until after the Messiah comes back is just WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group with little significance internationally. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this can be assessed without editors reviewing the overall presence of pics on this page. The breakdown is this:

  • (1) Two photos of a deserted peaceful border from the Israeli side and one of a small motorized truck carrying demonstrators and tires on the Gaza side.
  • (2) Two photos both dealing with Basques protesting the war (read the language on the banners)i.e.Gaza Iruñea elkartasuna 1.jpg Pamplona /File:Gaza Donostia protesta 2018 3.jpg San Sebastian
  • (3) File:Damege caused by palestinian fire-kites 2.jpg in Israel.
  • (4) Two photos of a pro-Gazan demonstration in ‘terrorist’ Tehran and Neturei Karta in London in one of several rallies there over the period. The Neturei Karta demonstration https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2018/04/gaza-london-protesters-denounce-killings-palestinians-180407172616217.html figures prominently in reports of that specific event in London

My assessment is that (1) is okay, despite the implicit message of a peaceful Israeli border and a crammed activist tire-burning Gaza border. (2) and (4) show demonstrations against Israel and for Gaza. That is undue, but the one photo people are pressing to elide is of a demonstration in London, on the grounds that neturei Karta is a fringe Jewish group. Well, take it out and you have 2 images of Basques demonstrating (a minority in Pamplona and San Sebastian), and one of Iran, the 'terrorist' state. You don't have to be Roland Barthes to get the message that those who protested did in obscure corners of the world, either a small ethnic minority in Spain, or a crowd in Iran. What is important about the Neturei Karta image is that it is one of a march that took place in London, you know, the real world. Objecting to the Haredi, and ignoring the fact that they were part of a large group protesting Israel's behavior in central London, leaves us with Basques and Iranians, as marginal as the Haredi in terms of world opinion. The 3rd is fine, but there is no corresponding picture of damage to Gaza or Gazans. So the overall selection is problematic, and singling out for erasure the NK pic doesn't solve the problem, it makes the POV subtextual message even more unbalanced. The elision leaves us with a photo message: there is a border for both, one quiet the other rambuctious; Israel was damaged; Iranians and Basques protested against Israel. The Neturei Karta image says -some Jews (in that April 7 demo there were quite a few small but vocal Jewish anti-Zionist secular people as well) protested, and did so in a major Western city. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You made a lot of great points and I do agree with you. I did find it curious that specifically Iran was selected to demonstrate solidarity with Palestine. What message does it send when the only photos selected protesting against Israel's handling of the situation, which the UN as a whole passed overwhelmingly, are Basques, Iran, and the NK? The NK is a fringe group, Basque independence movements historically used more violent methods of protest, and those in favour of Israel already hate Iran. In short, it makes it seem that condemning Israel on this one is the fringe-extremist-terrorist position. If uncontentious examples of worldwide protests exist, I'll consider replacing them with ones that no side would object to. There seems to be a very broad agreement here that NK isn't noteworthy enough to put here, but we definitely should find better examples. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind a removal of the Neturei Karta image s(as long as it doesn't become a precedent), as long as we remove the other images that create, precisely, the image that protests worldwide are a fringe phenomenon. If the problem is fringe, then it extends to the other three photos of Basques and Iran. Better no images than a false representation overall. Taking all four out is an incentive for editors to do some work and find a more balanced set of pictures. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll agree to that. The images should definitely be replaced. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
While I don't care about the other images at all, this is a false equivalence, especially where the Basque images are concerned. 90%+ of people are not versed in the ETA's occasionally violent history -- and those that are, are typically equally aware of the brutal suppression of Basque nationalism under the Franco regime. Indeed, if we argue the pic is pro-Israeli because of the ETA, a argument at least as valid is that it is anti-Israeli, advocating hte idea of solidarity of stateless peoples -- this is not my view, but nevertheless. There is a world of difference between this and using Neturei Karta to import a big sign into the article the statement saying "Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposed". --Calthinus (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually per NPOV editors are obliged in things like this to 'care about the other images' for the simple fact that a page must be measured by the degree it observes neutrality, and where we have a stack of images that are not mutually balanced, but rather pointy in their selectiveness, taking exception to one of 4, the only one that represents an image of protests in a Western capital, which means leaving the page, arguably, more biased, and in this case, no less 'fringe' than the photo of NK which is being removed solely as 'fringe'. The question is not that two Basque images are 'pro-Israeli' but that using an ethnic minority in Spain to represent world opinion about the Israel-Palestine conflict lends itself to a pro-Israeli bias, by suggesting only fringe movements (nota bene NK) protested. And please remember that NK's position on Zionism vs Judaism was the majority rabbinic view for a century before the establishment of the state of Israel, grounded on solid orthodox theological opinions.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re Kingsindian's concern

Obviously, in organizational terms, the Gaza Border Protests concern the formal Friday protests, which are numbered by the Palestinians. The numbering should be kept or retained. The other incidents, of which Kingsindian speaks, are separate issues, not strictly speaking classified as part of the Friday border protest organization. I won't remove them, of course, but the Friday incidents should be updated as long as they last.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In the infobox

Can you please mention in the infobox that the numbers of the killed and the injured in the Palestinian side include members of militant organizations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A042:4F8F:7188:7245:86EB:E256 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

+ 1Sokuya (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Need a better source than the ITIC sorry. nableezy - 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nableezy: If you personally "Need a better source than the ITIC sorry", then I "need a better source than" Middle East Monitor in the same infobox with its such false title as "123rd victim of Israel's attack on unarmed Palestinian demonstrators". --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
External images
Palestinian casualties in the “return march,” June 29, 2018
image icon Yasser Abu al-Naja (upper left, blue shirt), who was killed near the security fence on June 29, 2018. He was part of a Palestinian squad that tried to vandalize the barbed wire face, in ITIC assessment, in preparation for penetrating into Israeli territory (Facebook page of Mus’ab al-Kasas Abu Wadia’, July 2, 2018)[1]
image icon Muhammad al-Hamayda (red shirt) sabotages the barbed wire near the security fence in eastern Rafah a few minutes before he was killed by IDF fire (Facebook page of Kheiri Abu Fires Abu Sinjar from Rafah, June 30, 2018)[1]
The same question to @Nblund: can you please explain why have you erased ITIC's data basing only on such your personal opinion as "doesn't seem like a credible source - at best this should be treated as a biased source..."?
Let's see what's been erased:

Between 2,000 and 5,000 Palestinians demonstrated and rioted at five locations along the Gaza Strip border. Yasser Abu al-Najja (14) died of wounds to the head near eastern Khan Younis, while Muhammad Fawzi Muhammad al-Hamaydeh (24) died of wounds to his stomach and legs east of Rafah. Both them were hit with a shot "trying to sabotage the barbed wire near the security fence"[1]

Sorry, but such denying seems me as attempt to censor so important information and to retain only Hamas' POV in this article.
So I'd remind both you about such so usual & NPOV way as:
  • According to (1): ...
  • According to (2): ...
even for such sources as CNN & BBC with their manipulation. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I only removed the claim that both of the boys were killed while attempting to breach the security fence. The ITIC itself is closely affiliated with the Israeli military, and its ideological leanings are pretty obvious. I looked around and I couldn't find any other source that made this claim. It certainly doesn't appear in anywhere in the mainstream press coverage of the shootings (ex), and the Israeli military has simply pledged to investigate without offering any additional comment. That's a pretty good indication that the claim either isn't reliable or isn't notable enough to warrant mention here, so I'm inclined to scrap it until it gets more coverage. Nblund talk 15:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I found that The Jerusalem Post cited that report from ITCI. However, there have been new ITCI reports since then. Sokuya (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to the claim that the two people who were killed were trying to sabotage the security fence - I wasn't commenting on the claim about the number of terrorist affiliates. That said: the mere fact that an outlet mentioned a report doesn't make it a reliable secondary source (see WP:LINKSINACHAIN). It appears that ITIC's definition of "terrorist" is so broad that it includes every major political faction on Palestine, including Fatah and the DFLP, despite those groups not being designated terrorist organizations for several decades. Given that WP:TERRORIST already cautions against using this term without solid sourcing, I'd say this is more likely to misinform readers than clarify anything. Nblund talk 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Sokuya, anyone may learn how much ITIC data is used and where (here is by 'terrorism-info.org.il' only). It's only problem for some editors here in en-Wiki.
Moreover, as I know there no RS decision not to use ITIC's data. Only such verbal obstruction from those editors. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund: "Just to be clear" - (trying to understand) can you pls tell me if you personally think that ITIC's photos (with appropriate attribution) above aren't correct? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
ITIC is very closely affiliated to (and staffed by) Israeli intelligence. There's no way it can be treated as independent. And certainly not in the infobox. It can sometimes be used with attribution. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Igorp_lj In regards to the pictures: I have no idea if ITIC's interpretation is correct. It seems like you follow the Israeli-Palestine conflict closely enough to know that photographs are misinterpreted or mis-attributed all the time. The fact that the mainstream press doesn't mention this suggests that it is either dubious or, (perhaps more likely) it is considered irrelevant and a tasteless way to cover the death of a child. Either way, Wikipedia covers points of view in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources - and this particular claim doesn't appear prominent enough to warrant mention. Nblund talk 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Nblund. The Israeli defense minister is on record as asserting the view that technically, all people in Gaza are members of Hamas (the premise being all Hamas members are 'terrorists', ergo, anyone killed is a terrorist' (Tovah Lazaroff, ‘'There are no innocents in Gaza,' says Israeli defense minister,’ Jerusalem Post 8 April 2018:’ “You have to understand, there are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip. Everyone has a connection to Hamas.’) Those two photos merely show two youths near the fence, who are then gunned down. To get some perspective on the uniqueness of the ITIC/IDF/Government spin on this, you would do well, Igorp to examine the contrast in language used to cover attempts to breach theCeuta border fence between Spain and Morocco. Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Nishidani, of course. Your "perspective" is already known to me for a long time. Nothing except "We'll make them all believe that the Hamas Is Momma Theresa" :)
And what about BBC with its only (!) last scandal? What is your "perspective" in such a case?

Emmanuel Nahshon: @BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA .This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality ( that’s the polite equivalent of “ this is a LIE”, if you don’t get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them.Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c "News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (June 27 – July 3, 2018)". terrorism-info.org.il. 2018-07-04. Retrieved 14 July 2018.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

Where it says:

when Hamas claimed 50 of them as his militants and Islamic Jihad claimed 3 of the 62 killed as members of his military wing

Change both instances of "his" to "its."

Reason: Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not male persons. Their leaders are, but their leaders aren't the ones being referred to. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: reading further, this seems to be common throughout the article. Someone should give it a sweep. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed a bunch of his to its. Semitic languages gender everything - there is no neuter pronoun - which is probably the source for this. Article could use more extensive copy editing in general if someone want to pick that up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox and 8/8 events need to be updated

The Infobox need be updated to add the 26 civilians.[1]

Reason:

As 23 has Admitted to treatment on the the night between the 8 and the 9'th.[2][3]

One foreign worker had been wounded during the barrage[4]

8 August section it should be added the Israeli wounded:

During the night of the 8 August, the Barzilai Hospita treated 23 Israelis for injuries and trauma caused by the mortar and rocket attacks [5] when the total for the weekend was 26 (including the 9'th https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/foreign-worker-severely-wounded-in-israel-by-gaza-rocket-1.6362848).

Who said that these events are part of the border protests ? “WarKosign” 06:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The events are already covered in that page which cover the four months of protests and sequenced events, it's the wounded which are not listed in the infobox and the 8'th description.

References

  1. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/foreign-worker-severely-wounded-in-israel-by-gaza-rocket-1.6362848
  2. ^ https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Rocket-sirens-wail-across-southern-Israel-as-IDF-strikes-Gaza-564454
  3. ^ https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5325597,00.html
  4. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/foreign-worker-severely-wounded-in-israel-by-gaza-rocket-1.6362848
  5. ^ https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Rocket-sirens-wail-across-southern-Israel-as-IDF-strikes-Gaza-564454
 Not done It's not clear where within the infobox you want this information to be added. Fish+Karate 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Article should be split

It would make since to split the timeline into another page, and make an overview of the events on this one, the reasoning behind this is that this page has become very long, and to my understanding qualifies for size splitting. As it is currently 223.961kbs. Which is double the rule of thumb.

Also for pages about conflicts in general the actual timeline is usually split, for example, the Timeline of the Winter War. ShimonChai (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree this page is too long. That is why I created a page called 2018 Gaza-Israel conflict, but the editors were being disruptive and eventually shut it down. I wanted a page that focuses on the fire kites, the damage they caused and other incidents. This page is supposed to be about the border, according to the title. But if you want all the incidents to be on this page (even if you add more pages) shouldn't the title change?--Jane955 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The name "2018 Gaza border protests" makes sense in theory, but the page currently does not seem like it is just covering the protests, for example "Several houses in the Israeli city of Sderot were hit by machine gun fire from Gaza, causing damage but no injuries." Doesn't fall under "protests" in any sense of the word. Originally the wording made sense, but that was months ago, and this page, and the border situation, have both expanded to encompass conflict that both sides could agree is more than just protests. It would make sense to make a page dedicated to the current conflict in general, and keeping this page to cover the actual protest aspects of the current conflict. If that's controversial to anyone, then "Timeline of the 2018 Gaza border protests" would also make sense, and it would allow for making the article a reasonable size, also I wouldn't object to a page about the fire kites as they have caused tons of damage to forests and fields around that area, and have also greatly escalated the conflict. But right now it seems better just to come to an easy agreement with both sides to fix the article size problem. ShimonChai (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start a new RfC in which we suggest that the article be renamed to "2018 Gaza border conflict." What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That has been done a few times, as soon as this article was created there was a debate about the word protest vs conflict. I wouldn't object to it, given the current state of the article, but it doesn't address the size issue. ShimonChai (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, this specific name was never suggested. Rather, they had previously debated a change of name entitled "2018 Gaza border clashes." As for the size-issue, it can still be condensed or broken-down into two separate articles.Davidbena (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I looked back at the archives, it seems you are right, it was the "Gaza Border Incidents" that the naming debate was about before.ShimonChai (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
2018 Gaza border conflict - ? Now it seems to be even more exact name as "Clashes". --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

ShimonChai think the rule of thumb applies to readable prose - not including wikimarkup and references. According to this tool, the article is a little over 9,000 words with a readable prose size of 56Kb, so we really aren't in urgent need of a split. I agree that it's unwieldy, but the timeline of events section almost certainly needs to be trimmed to prose form or spun out to a separate article - if we do that, we can easily address size concerns without having to worry about re-hashing an already contentious argument about the article title. Nblund talk 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: If the timeline is summarized and cleaned up it would probably fix the readability issue without having to make a new page, also the "Casualties and damage" also seems fairly unorganized in terms of structure. The bulletin list would be much smaller, and make much more sense as a table. ShimonChai (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. The article shouldn't be split, a lot of information must be summarized. I raised this issue back in May and shortened some of the sections, by 5000 bytes. The article is a list of events, and in my opinion should be more like a story.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned the issue of the scope of the article in a section just above. The article is now even more a dumping ground for "latest developments in Gaza". If the idea of the article is really to be about "latest developments in Gaza", it shouldn't arbitrarily start in March. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It should either turn into "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes", which will include the two phases of this conflict (the protests and the artillery battles), as they are connected. This choronolgy, sadly only available in Hebrew, shows how the protests, the kites, the talks and the artillery battles are linked together as part of the same event, centered around Hamas' attempt to lift the blockade.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Bolter21 that the best remedy for this article is to rename it "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes." It has moved beyond a mere protest.Davidbena (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If it is to turn into 2018 Gaza-Israel clashes (why not just have a separate article for that?), it should cover events prior to March. The blockade is more than a decade old, after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It is because here, in this case, we're talking about a chain of events which had its beginnings from 30 March 2018; events that precipitated from a planned weekly (Friday) march along the Israeli-Gaza border, and which obviously got out-of-hand.Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
T he chain of events is endless. The title demands a restriction to the theme of specific events occasionerd by the formal decision to undertake a series of protests. 'Clashes' is a non-starter, for the simple reason that a series of protests involved hundreds of thousands of people whose presence was anywhere from a kilometer to 1 metres from the fence had a 'front line' close to the fence where clashes occurred, and statistically most of the 155 dead were killed, in 'clashes'. Several attempts have been made to alter 'protests' to 'clashes' to reflect that Israeli defrault perspective and have failed. Sometimes one does well to accept that one cannot persistently try to n rechallenge a consensus. To call 'clashing' numerous incidents where people were shot or gassed without throwing a stone is question-begging. The Hebrew Wikipedia is, like Israeli newspaper reportage, for internal Israeli consumption, and is light-years away from neutral. I agree with Kingsindian that one should create another article if one wishes to deal with events that involve no protests, but rather open military conflicts that have come to the fore in recent days, and restrict this page to coverage of events which are programmed basically for each Friday. Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This escalation in Gaza, which began in March 2018, and has roots both in 2014 and 2005 is another episode in the Gaza conflict, which has no official or common name. The Haaretz article called it "the events of recent months". Many news articles talk about the things that changed in the last four months, most notable in Israeli media is that "Israeli deterrence is gone". It is all the same event and shouldn't be split but maybe summarized more. A list of kite attacks and protests for each day of a month can be summarized to "In [month] there was a [rise/decline] in kite attacks and [number of ] Palestinians were killed, of them [number] were targeted while launching kites and [number] during protests.[sources, sources, source] And then maybe a few special events that happened that month. As long as the details of every single incident do not contribute anything important for the understanding of the whole thing, there is no need to go into detail. And lists of incidents are the most boring thing to read. I bet less than 1% of people actually read the entire list, and these 1% exclude myself. Not a valid argument, but from the point of view of an Israeli soldier, the army also views the last four months as a distinct period in the conflict, and all of the events are linked together.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You are correct that a synthesis is required, and the prior work you did was a healthy contribution to the page. My personal view is that one should synthesize when adequate statistical work and analytical historiography is available, and (2) avoid the temptation in a précis of disappearing all of the relevant sources on specific incidents down the Orwellian memory hole. The truth is in the details, historically, and a bird's eye-view rigorously summing up, as often as not, simply denies the curious reader an opportunity to click through and read of what actually occurred with any one incident. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, I think that, here, the old consensus is being re-evaluated because of ever-changing events. Even if we should use the more precise title of "2018 Gaza–Israel clashes," we can point out in the lede paragraph that the entire episode started out as mere border protests. Truthfully, I don't think that there is anything quintessentially "Israeli" about relating to these disturbances as "clashes," although they may have started out as protests.Davidbena (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that when you start and end a story changes the framing of the story. And it is not value-neutral. The events of March-May were certainly important in changing the circumstances of an ongoing conflict. But is it really proper to view them all as a continuation? I talked about a very simple measure above: how many tents are there now, compared to pre-May 15? How many people are there, compared to pre-May 15? As far as I can determine, it's probably a difference of an order of magnitude. That's a pretty sharp break. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a clear distinction between the long series of border protests, and the recent outbreak of hostilities between Israel and groups in the Gaza Strip. If I am present at a demonstration and shot a couple of hundred yards away from the front line, perhaps while driving an ambulance, I am not, except in Israel's unique vocabulary, engaged in clashing with anyone. There are far too many incidents of this type to permit the POV screwing /spinning of this as 'clashes'. That word in English doesn't cover such 'events'.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The whole four month campaign have nothing to do with "return". No one can reasonably say that the true aim of the Gazan protests is to give Blue identification cards to over a million Palestinian second and third generation refugees. The whole campaign, including the protests, including the kits, including the rockets, is with Hamas' struggle to remain in power and to lift the Israeli blockade and not make Gaza a humanitarian death camp. You seem to be trying to emphasize "Israeli brutallity" and "war crimes", but as much as the life of gazan suicidal protesters, terrorirsts and ambulance drivers are important, there is a bigger picture. The death of a pregnant woman is notable, but have no importance whatsoever in understanding last day's clashes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you might be replying to Nishidani, in which case you might want to add another indent. The issue is not whether the organizers of "The Great March of Return" were sincere in their motivations or not. The issue is whether that period (March to May) can be treated as a distinct event in this overlong saga. Nobody is claiming that the events in this period weren't connected to the past or the future. But I tried to give a simple measure which suggests that one should have a sharp break at May 15. My second point is that if this article is indeed to become a dumping ground for everything, it should indeed contain everything, not just the events post-March. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Bolter. The simple answer is, take that ethnic bar-chatting, buddy-yarning POV and use the same principle in re-editing pages like the Bar Kokhba revolt or Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A conscientious editor with an interest in real history, and not local newspaper blarney would feel obliged, even with gritted teeth to read, for example Norman G. Finkelstein,Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018. Unlike journalists who are hired to feed the masses tripe and spin, he was fired because he examined minutely the details of everything done in, or said about, this conflict.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, we do not know that. Perhaps there was intelligence that a couple of hundred yards away from the security fence there was a group of armed militants en route to the fence. You see, we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that everything here is connected one way or the other.Davidbena (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I was raised never to give my government the benefit of the doubt, and, when the Vietnam War broke out, the sober understanding of how consensus, like that Bolter exhibits, with the national narrative is just a lazy lockstep obeisance to stay happily in a comfort zone was vindicated by history. No historian reads the reportage of that war through daily newspaper accounts, since it has been proven endlessly to have been a continual scam of propaganda. Anyone shooting an unarmed person tens to hundreds of yards away from a comfortable position behind a sand berm with an ultra-precise sniper rifle is a murderer, engaged in criminal conduct. Or is so if one subscribes to a concept of law, and ethics, as opposed to lawfare and ethnics. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Nishidani, you've made it clear where your sentiment lies. Can we at least edit this page without inserting our own bias? I'm not sure that that's possible, but at least we should try.Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not my bias. It is that of Sir Stephen Sedley, who knows more about international law, and Judaism, than anyone here.*Sir Stephen Sedley, 'Short Cuts,' London Review of Books vol 40 No 9, 10 May 2018 re 'a major crime'. Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Nish, murderer or not, this is not a report on Israeli war crimes, and there is such a bigger picture than the war-crimes. Every person who launches an incendiary kite towards the general direction of a civilian region is also a terrorist. But we don't sit here and try to list every kite attack and their impacts on kindergardens. There is a political conflict, about the lives and security of millions, not the unfortunate deaths of a few noncombantants in a suicide protests, or the death of some corn. I don't wish to continue this discussion, it does not lead to anything productive.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Logic. A Gazan who sends an incendiary kite into Israel that burns kibbutz fields is a terrorist. A settler who (google it: hundreds of pages detail the practice, it is almost a weekly event) sets fire to Palestinian fields and olive groves is not a terrorist. I.e. your premise is ethnic. The ethnicity of the agent determines how the act is to be defined, as sanctionable by execution or just ignored. I have no interest in pursuing this either. To me it is all tediously obvious. I've heard these comments endlessly for decades, since the 1960s and arguing is pointless, since the 'arguments' are rarely premised on either sound logical principles, clear definition of terms, or careful impartial evaluation of the evidence. Keep well.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"A settler who (google it: hundreds of pages detail the practice, it is almost a weekly event) sets fire to Palestinian fields..." - this is Nishidani's "truth" what he's fighting for here. Not according to 1: so, according to 2: opposite.
And his endless not-NPOV series Lists of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an excellent example of such "facts" here in Wiki :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
See Denialism.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
As well as Fake news: "a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media... is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically".
Both them are suitable either for mainstream media regarding to PIC (BBC above is only one such example) or for your Lists of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's version. That's the pity but that some editors aren't able (or do not want) to understand that such not-NPOV approach only damages Wikipedia's reliability. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
85% - at least - of this thread went off TP guidelines into WP:FORUM - Administrators, please, step in early and often. This whole topic is very touchy anyway, and POV-editors can drag the TP off course easily. Thanks for future diligence. 50.111.4.123 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sons of Zouari

I made a page about the Sons of Zouari which is a group that legitimate media sources have reported is responsible for the flaming kite/balloon attacks on Israel. I wanted to write more because there are a ton of citations but every time I make a typo and try and go back to correct it the cursor glitches out and starts overwriting the next character making it hard to correct things. ShimonChai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

AI summary report on the Great March of Return

Here's an Amnesty International report on the situation so far. The total casualty figures (from Al Mezan) cited there are:

According to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, since the start of the protests, over 150 Palestinians have been killed in the demonstrations. At least 10,000 others have been injured, including 1,849 children, 424 women, 115 paramedics and 115 journalists. Of those injured, 5,814 were hit by live ammunition. According to Israeli media, one soldier was moderately injured due to shrapnel from a grenade thrown by a Palestinian from inside Gaza and one Israeli soldier was killed by Palestinian sniper fire near the fence that separates Gaza and Israel outside of the context of the protests.

I've added some of the material to the article. I may do more when I get some time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I don't understand the edits removing the Al Mezan reference and simultaneously attributing the statement to Al Mezan. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I left the Amnesty International report which summarized Al Mezan and Israeli media. If you really want to cite Al Mezan as well - you could for the first part (not for the Israeli casualties - which Amnesty attributes to a different source - Israeli media) - but I don't think you need this - as we can trust, I think, Amnesty to quote/summarize Al Mezan. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You could have just moved the Al Mezan reference to the end of the previous sentence. I like to provide direct links as much as I can (for instance, to UN reports by OCHA). Anyway, doesn't really matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ITIC

Icewhiz, as written previously "ITIC is very closely affiliated to (and staffed by) Israeli intelligence. There's no way it can be treated as independent. And certainly not in the infobox. It can sometimes be used with attribution."

It is customary for articles to describe non-obvious organization names with one or more adjectives. Eg. we write "The Palestinian Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in the Gaza Strip stated ..." and not "Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights stated ..." ITIC should be described in the same way. Note that I didn't change the description of ITIC that you object to, it was that way before Shrike updated it due to the missing source. ImTheIP (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The source we were citing - the NYT says "independent research group" - which was omitted for some odd reason..... At present we mention Al-Mezan several times in the article - all save one without even mentioning they are Palestinian. Here we went even farther than simply placing a national affiliation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't be held responsible for every error in every Wikipedia article. The right way to introduce sources is to name them and describe them by adjectives and affiliations. This is to be done once when the source is first mentioned. In subsequent references to the source it is enough to refer to it by name. I have updated the article so that Al Mezan is handled in that way.
ITIC and other sources should be handled in the same way. In ITICs case, it is relevant that the org is Israeli, receives government funding and that it has close ties to the Israeli military. The part about the AJC, I agree is perhaps superfluous. Describing a source's affiliations is not "source-smearing." ImTheIP (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The way this was done - was source smearing. If we are to label sources in the article (as opposed to wikilinking) - it should be done consistently and fairly throughout the article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It's relevant that Al-Mezan is Palestinian, does not disclose the source of its funding and several times provided unreliable statistics originating from Hamas-run ministry of health. Shall we add this description ? “WarKosign” 10:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The cited JPOST source also mentions that that ITIC is mostly staffed by former members of the Israeli military. I think there's a problem here with placing this assessment alongside more notable findings from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, since this report appears to have received limited coverage.
I'm also a little concerned that the wording sort of takes ITIC's definition of "terrorist operative" at face value when it includes a lot of groups that most people probably wouldn't consider to be terrorist organizations - their definition of "terrorist operative" appears to include basically anyone with any affiliation with a Palestinian political party. Whether you think Fatah is a terrorist organization or not, I think it's worth clarifying exactly what they mean by "terrorist affiliate" here. So maybe it could be reworded to say that: "By 15 May, the center wrote that of 112 Palestinians killed by that date, 93 were affiliated with Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, DFLP, or PFLP, groups which they state are terrorist organizations" Nblund talk 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The same article also calls ITIC "unusually credible". No WP:CHERRYPICKING please. “WarKosign” 08:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz and WarKosign, the discussion has already been had on this page. It is not WP:SYNTH, it is WP:MOS. I also note that the text read "with ties to the IDF and the American Jewish Congress, published an "initial analysis"" before this edit war was started. ImTheIP (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Omitting "unusually credible" from the cited source, while adding other content, is... a rather large misrepresentation of what the source is saying. a stable version is not an excuse for SYNTH or misrepresenting sources. Nor is it an excuse to single this organization out from others in terms of how we describe it in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You are confused, the source in the article, [3], didn't use the phrase "unusally credible". No organization is singled out. I did, at your request even, change the description of Al Mezan. In the other article we have been quarreling about, Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), I wrote "the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network" and you have, at least not yet, objected to the "Hamas-affiliated" adjective. Describing source affiliations is just good writing and not controversial. ImTheIP (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not cherrypicking. "Unusually credible" is a judgement that illustrates the editorial bent of Jpost, but the ITIC's connection to the Israel (and Israeli intelligence in particular) is a well-documented fact that reliable sources usually mention when they have cited this organization in the past:

  • BBC -"an Israel-based non-governmental organisation which has close ties to the Israeli Defense Force"
  • Reuters "...think-tank, which is located next to the headquarters of Israel’s main foreign spy services and draws staff from them"
  • Washington Post "A think tank with ties to Israel's Defense Ministry"
  • Haaretz "a 'pipeline' for information and assessments that the Military Intelligence research division does not want directly associated with it."
  • UPI [an organization] "...which the intelligence community uses to release declassified materials"
  • Politifact "an Israeli think tank considered close to the country’s military and intelligence sector"
  • The New York Times Review of Books - "an Israeli nongovernmental organization created 'in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community' and staffed by its former employees"
  • NYTimes (weakest mention) "Israeli group that analyzed the first Palestinian deaths"

Ultimately, I suspect the primary reason we don't have lots of additional sources that note ITIC's connection to Israel and Israeli intelligence in relation to this specific report is because the mainstream press didn't bother covering this report in the first place. Thus, citing this at all is probably inconsistent with WP:DUE weight, and insisting that we need additional sourcing here really makes it seem like a bit of an end-run around WP:NPOV. Honestly, does this really seem consistent with the goals of Wikipedia to cite this without giving any information on it's origins? Nblund talk 00:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF. The sources certainly can be (and probably are) used on the article ITIC. Since these sources do not mention events that happened on the Gaza border in 2018 it is WP:SYNTH to use them here. We certainly must disclose the information's origin by mentioning ITIC and per MOS:LINKSTYLE should link to its article so the reader can better understand what the organization is. It is cherry-picking, if we only take parts of these quotes that can be used to show that ITIC is potentially biased but don't take the parts that show it's reliable and has more access to classified military information than other NGOs. The point is moot since it's WP:UNDUE to give a proper and balanced description of ITIC. If you want to discuss how each of the NGOs mentioned in the article should be described, go ahead. No reason to single out ITIC. “WarKosign” 05:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The policy says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The charge that the clause with close ties to the Israeli military violates WP:SYNTH therefore fails on two accounts. 1) It is not a conclusion. 2) The close ties to the Israeli military are explicitly stated by the Jerusalem Post article. ImTheIP (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Then we should add that they credible as per source --Shrike (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely not synth to define a term or describe a source. We do this all the time when we describe the position on a source in-text (e.g. "Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."). It's pointless to give in-text attribution to ITIC if we aren't going to say who they are, and we don't need to require readers to click a link in order to read see relevant context. It's also not cherrypicking to report a widely-cited fact while ignoring a statement of opinion - Wikipedians do this all the time when drawing factual information from biased sources. As for the other NGOs: if there are specific sources that you believe need additional context, I'm open to it, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to address non-specific other stuff before accepting a specific change. Nblund talk 16:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Shrike, in addition to Nblud's excellent arguments, I think you are being a little obtuse here. That ITIC is used as a source in the article clearly implies that it is a credible source or else it wouldn't be used... ImTheIP (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I accept that WP:SYNTH does not apply. The rest of the argument still stands - there is a lot of NGOs mentioned in the article and apparently there is no need to mention their affiliation, so there is no reason to treat ITIC any differently: Adalah, Al Mezan, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Shurat HaDin. Al-Haq is the only exception I see, it's described as "Palestinian". We could add to each of these a description sufficiently long and detailed not to violate WP:NPOV, but such level of detail is just undue here. “WarKosign” 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Al Mezan is already described as Gaza-based but I added an additional mention that describes it as a Gaza-based human rights organization. It's probably not necessarily to say this every time Al Mezan is mentioned, but I don't see any problem with saying it in places where it is prominently cited if reliable sources typically do the same.
  • Adalah is mentioned only once. I don't think there's any problem with describing it as an organization that lobbies for Arab-Palestinian minorities in Israel, but I suspect its orientation here is probably kind of obvious because it's mentioned as a party involved in suing the Israeli government.
  • The same story goes for Shurat Ha-Din - I don't have a problem with saying it's an Israeli org, but it's suing Hamas in the ICC, so I don't think readers are going to be confused about where it stands
  • B'Tselem is Israeli, and Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch are relatively well-known international human rights organizations. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to mentioning where these groups are based, but I think that mentioning where they are based lends more credibility, not less.
I think it's unnecessary to mention affiliations for some of these groups, but I don't think it's undue and I'm open to adding some if they are well-sourced. The ITIC does stand out here because it is being cited alongside respected independent human rights organizations for a claim of fact rather than an opinion, and because its name and orientation probably aren't obvious to readers in the way that HRW might be. Nblund talk 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to describing ITIC as "Israel-based", it's an objective fact. "Close ties" or "unusually credible" is a matter of opinion and thus can't be used in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 07:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF.
Yesterday you wrote "These sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ITIC has ties to IDF." Have you changed your mind? I have added attributions to almost all claims in the article with the exception of Amnesty and Doctors Without Borders because the average reader already knows about these organizations. The ITIC claims are now the only ones not characterized in the same fashion. ImTheIP (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they prove that ITIC has ties, and they also prove that it's reliable. “WarKosign” 17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Read the source closely. It doesn't use the word "militant". If we are to use this low-quality source in the article, then we should describe it properly. It claims that 26 "killed were terrorist operatives affiliated with terrorist organizations" but the in the table starting on page 27 [4] it claims that several of the victims were affiliated with Fatah, DFLP or members of the Palestinian police force. Those are generally not considered "terrorist groups". In the group of 26 "terrorists killed", several are also listed as "possibly" (!) or "apparently" members. ImTheIP (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that over-broad definition of "terrorist organization" is part of the reason that we really need to be careful about describing this study. Ultimately I think it is probably WP:UNDUE and should just be removed, but I realize that might be a bridge to far here. Barring that, i'm wondering if we need to mention all three reports they released since they all drew basically the same conclusion and used roughly the same approach. If we just mention the final report, then we can give an explicit breakdown of how they define "terrorist organizations" without being overly-redundant. Nblund talk 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
ITIC's reports update and elaborate each other, so the most recent one is the one that we should use, unless we are discussing a specific point in time. We can use the mellow term "militant" or we can directly quote or otherwise show that "terrorist organization" and "terror operative" are ITIC's terms, but we can't arbitrarily decide to change it to "Palestinian" - it completely contradicts the spirit of the report. Without this report we have only one set of numbers regarding casualties, those provided by Hamas via their ministry of health, and this is completely unacceptable. “WarKosign” 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't treat ITIC's claims as facts and I don't think most reliable sources would describe Fatah as a militant or a terrorist organization, so quoting/attribution is definitely preferable here - I'm not sure if you're saying that in response to my edit here, but I hope that's a reasonable compromise.


Do ITIC's figures contradict the figures from Gaza's ministry of health? It looks like they found and confirmed 124 of the 127 fatalities. The article discusses the IDF's claims that many of the protesters were militants, so that part of the debate is still receiving coverage, but this particular report doesn't appear to have received any coverage (at least in English language press) beyond this mention in the Times of Israel. I think this is problematic, in part, because I suspect if it had received additional coverage then we would be able to cite editorials that offered a counter-argument. As it stands, however, the report is so obscure that we can't really cite "both sides" of a debate around these figures. That seems problematic to me. Nblund talk 20:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to introduce a breakdown of those killed here [5]. But the way the report groups the victims is just really weird and confusing. WarKosign is likely right, that the "spirit" of the report is 26/32 dead are "terrorists", but that is not what the contents of the report say. I guess the "point" of the reference is to represent the Israeli POV: "Most of those killed are militants/terrorists/etc" but there gotta be better ways to do that. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ages

I like that articles are detailed, but I think that mentioning the ages of the casualties is to much. The age is almost always irrelevant, unless it is someone very young like a baby or perhaps someone very old. Names are of course also almost always irrelevant, but they can sometimes make the chronology easier for the reader to follow. Thoughts? ImTheIP (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Already talked about it a while ago in Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests/Archive_2#Issues_with_the_article_that_must_be_solved_ASAP.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the bullet-pointed lists of fatalities are excessive in general. I think that it would probably make sense to simply eliminate most of these (unless they are particular notable) and just give a rough count of the number of fatalities. I removed some mentions of age ranges - this was a point the IDF made, but it seems to be contradicted by reports from Palestinians. I'm not opposed to including it with in-text attribution to an IDF spokesman. I assume that implication is that these people were in the demographic age range for militants, but unless we come out and point that out, then it reads like a bit of a non-sequitur. Nblund talk 18:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree in a way. But otoh, other articles elaborate on the circumstances of every single Israeli casualty. So it could be seen as unfair to summarize dozens of Palestinian casualties in short paragraphs. Perhaps we could create a sibling article, for example Timeline of the 2018 Gaza border protests, and move the detailed timeline there? ImTheIP (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

The following UN document by an independent international commission of inquiry has very precise figures and reportage that should be used to revise the page here. Namely,

In particular the graph on p.6 should be reproduced.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Add this citation: http://www.mezan.org/en/post/23230/Seven+Protesters+Killed%2C+Two+of+Them+Children%2C+and+257+Injured+at+Friday+Demonstrations+in+Gaza To this sentence: According to Al Mezan as of October 2018, over 150 Palestinians have been killed in the demonstrations, including 30 children, one woman, two journalists, three paramedics, and three persons with disability. At least 10,000 other Palestinians have been injured, including 1,849 children, 424 women, 115 paramedics and 115 journalists. Of those, 5,814 were hit by live ammunition.[citation needed] Tmc3000 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No. This is useless, and inaccurate, since it doesn't have a scientific breakdown. See the section below, for an independent chart of statistics.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Marked as answered since another editor has replied to this request and there was no objections to response. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2018 Gaza border protests

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 Gaza border protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNHRC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Aviv Levi

Apropos this revert, ShimonChai, you didn't read the source, and you misunderstood the point. No one could possibly doubt Aviv Levi was killed near the border.

The source for zero killed is Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Human Rights Council 25 February 2019

And it states:-

  • One Israeli soldier was killed on a Friday while demonstrations were ongoing but outside the protest sites; see para. 90. P.7, note d
  • Para 90. On 20 July, a Palestinian sniper shot Staff Sergeant Aviv Levi of the Givati Brigade while he was near the separation fence opposite Kibbutz Kissufim. According to Israeli sources, he was shot from the first line of houses in Gaza.p.17

So you have a source conflict based on different methodologies. Israeli reports counting this killing as part of the 2018 Gaza Protests. The UN Commission excludes it because he was killed not by a protestor, but by a sniper far away from the protest sites.

Now, if I had a choice in making a report, I would probably include him as a casualty of the protests, since he was there to perform a function of repressing the protests, and died in the line of duty. But if an independent source states that he is not to be counted in that way because the sniper who killed him did not take part in the protests, but shot him at a long distance from a house in Gaza, the under Wikipedia rules I am obliged to register this. Put it the other way round, 4 Hamas men were killed in the bomb strikes that followed, bombs that did not hit protestors, and therefore they would not be counted as casualties in the protests, because they were outside the protest sites. NPOV requires us to give all versions. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the WP:OR that registers people hurt by shrapnel in Sderot as victims of the Border Protests either, though you need a secondary source to register that this is appropriate. There is no evidence I know of that connects the rocket attack with protestors at the fence. How 6 military men injured is arrived at rather than 4 is again, apparently WP:OR, unless you have an official Israeli sources stating that 6 soldiers were injured. 6 have been injured, 2 this year by my count, but the sources we used predate 2019Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The commission should only be use attributed, HRC is very much an involved party here. Reporting on the shooting clearly places it in the context of the border riots (which are all across the gaza border). Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
External organizations don't become involved parties by conducting investigations. Zerotalk 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Critsicsim of media coverage"

Media coverage in the west has been almost wholly uncritical of Israel and pretty much taken their word at face value, as the liberal media always does. The section is laughable. How much money does Israel have to pay for this level of hasbara? The multiple comments from IDF officials is especially laughable. Does anybody have any quotes from some Hamas officials concerning their portrayal in the imperialist, pro-settler colonist western media industry? No country in the world is treated more undeservedly well by the media, than Israel. Let's hear the words of some Palestinians, and not just Israeli's and western liberal imperialists. The IDF, as a participant in the conflict, and having never once renounced violence or attempted non-violence at all, is no more reliable a source than Hamas.2601:140:8980:106F:99BB:94C9:6F7E:4F51 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Pointless "Ration" column

What's the rationale for / added value of this useless "Ratio" column in the "Casualties" section? No other Wikipedia article contains anything like it. It's not even in the source. -- 95.90.221.236 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the point in the ratio column?

Nishidani your revert restored the ratio column. Would you care to explain what is it good for? The first row says there are 183 fatalities in Gaza and 0 in Israel, then it goes on to say that the ratio is 183:0. It's not even WP:CALC, it's just repetition of the data readily visible a tiny bit to the left. How is it not redundant? “WarKosign” 21:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I join the question.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I assume that Nishidani agreed, since they self-reverted. “WarKosign” 16:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – Per commonname. I didn’t propose this previously, as it wasn’t clear if the official name would stick. As we move into 2020, it’s now clear that the “Great March of Return” title is by far the most common name in use by WP:RS. It also hits all five requirements of WP:TITLE: Recognizability is clear (the name is widely known); Naturalness (i.e. commonname, plus it is the official name); Precision (there is no other similar); Conciseness (much shorter); Consistency (per Category:Protest marches). Onceinawhile (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree to this suggestion. It is not only the most common term, but also the official word used by its organizers, as noted above.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
No, this would be a POV title giving preference to one side's narrative over the other. Just like 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is not titled Operation Protective Edge. A mention in the lead and redirect - sure, but not as title of the article. “WarKosign” 17:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
You mean it is POV pushing to call any movement by the name those who participate in it act under? That is your premise, contrary to usage.Salt March was Gandhi's term not that of the occupying power who considered it a form of insurrection,Boston Tea Party was not considered thus by the British authorities but by those who conducted it, idem for The World Is Bardo,Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament,Bataan Death March (the victims' description, never used by the Japanese organizing it).Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I mean that using a less-popular name with clear political implications given by one side of the conflict over a neutral and more popular name given by the media is POV pushing. Googling "gaza border protests" yielded over 6 million results for me, while "great march of return" yielded less than half a million. “WarKosign” 21:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you use inverted commas to fix the exact phrase? I get 164,000 for "gaza border protests" vs 438,000 for "great march of return", so approximately 2.5x more popular. And that’s not even adjusting for the hundreds of other smaller “gaza border protests” that have taken place since the blockade began. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I used quotation marks to search for exact phrases. Now I'm getting results similar to what you're reporting. I'll retry on the same computer as before later today, I wonder if the computer matters or I messed something up.
It seems that many of the sources that do use "Great March of Return" use the name in quotation marks. It makes it far less objectionable. “WarKosign” 14:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed move. The proposed title is non-NPOV and is the common name by one side of the conflict only. It would be equally non-NPOV for an editor, for example, to propose the article be moved to "2018-19 Gaza border terror". The current title is the most neutral. Furthermore, the proposed name change would imply that Wikipedia has a particular position on the so-called Palestinian right of return which remains a controversial issue. Île flottante (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, POV name.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I too am neutral on outcomes as long as the result here is mirrored in our general I/P namings. Consistency must be the norm. As Onceinawhile notes, there are many Israeli official terms] given to events in which two parties are in conflict. Editors involved in these discussions must show cogency in their logic. One cannot accept the Israeli IDF operation names and protest against the official Palestinian name, as has Île flottante in opposing the official Palestinian name here while supporting the official (and to many, offensive) official Israeli euphemisms in Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Days of Penitence,Operation Hot Winter,Operation Pillar of Defense and Operation Rainbow. Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2019 (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.

Extended Confirmed-Protected edit request on 30 December 2019

Casualties and Losses listed in info box appear inaccurate. On the right side, presumably representing 'Israel,' it lists '5 civilians.' The listed citations 8 and 9 refer to injuries that occurred on a Tuesday, and Saturday Evening, respectively. Neither citation gives any clear linkage to the weekly Great March of Return protests which the this Wiki page itself informs us happen on Fridays. These two citations, and the '5 civilians' that go with it thus seem to have no direct link to the Great March of Return and are more related to the greater Gaza-Israel conflict. This section should report "0 civilians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorniva (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The article pertains to a variety of activities which occur at the same time as the so-called march of return. These activities include Palestinian acts of terror such as the firing of weapons targeting innocent Israeli civilians across the border. The innocent Israeli civilians and soldiers having been injured as a result of these acts of terror, editors have correctly included these victims in the list. Île flottante (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed-Protected edit request on 01 January 2020

Casualties and Losses listed in info box appear inaccurate.

As this article pertains to a variety of activities which occur at the same time as the Great March of Return it should have the following edit:

Add the 391 injuries from scooter accidents reported between January and September of 2019 ( https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Electric-scooter-injuries-soared-on-Israels-roads-in-2019-608113 ). It should also include the 58 Israelis injured in defensive responses in the 2nd week of November 2019 ( https://www.jweekly.com/2019/11/14/34-palestinians-killed-58-israelis-injured-in-rocket-attacks-this-week/ ), 3 injured in defensive responses in the first week of May 2019 ( https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-seriously-injured-1-moderately-in-rocket-attack-on-ashkelon-factory/ ), 7 injured in defensive responses in the final week of March 2019 ( https://www.gaza48.com/2019/03/25/7-israelis-injured-in-rocket-attack-on-house-north-of-tel-avivin-response-to-the-bombing-of-sites-of-resistance-in-gaza/ ), 6 injured in defensive responses in the last week of May 2019 ( https://ajn.timesofisrael.com/israelis-injured-in-rocket-attack-from-gaza/ ). Importantly it should include the fact that 349 Israelis were killed in traffic accidents in 2019 ( https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/273848 )

The column for what presumably represents Israel in the info box should read: 470 injured, 349 or 350 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorniva (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This is clearly a joke, albeit not a funny one. Road traffic accidents have nothing to do with the conflict. Île flottante (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ideas for further work

Background section is really long and to detailed. I think some of it could be cut out, like "In January 2018, it was reported that 97% of the territory's tap water was undrinkable" or summarized in some way. Most of the stuff from the timeline should be moved to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2018, except for the demonstrations on Fridays because they were significantly larger than other weekdays. More information is needed on the flotilla demonstrations which appear to have been held once per week on Mondays. A lot of information about Ahmed Abu Ratima and the original organization of the protests are missing. Like, how did he start it? Also the article needs an External links section, imo. Then the references has to be checked because I have moved paragraphs around so it is possible they have been confused. ImTheIP (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation for " United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission" in the preamble before the contents: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=24226&LangID=E or the report that it refers to. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede change

I just excised a paragraph from the lede that was added by Enthusiast01 in 2019. [6] The violent/non-violent nature of the protests are already elaborated on in the third paragraph. No need to dupliate it. ImTheIP (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope it's ok if i praise this page's rigor

I wanted to thank the editors and contributors to this page. The topic is highly politicized and this page is an example of how such a topic should be treated on wikipedia -though perhaps i missed some subtle but important biases. Unfortunately most conflictual topics are treated in a misleading way on wikipedia, presenting sometimes dubious information, citing highly partial sources from a single side of the conflict -some languages, like french, are more affected than others. Thus i encourage wikipedia editors to learn from the exemplary treatment here to improve wiki's coverage of other conflicts -for instance that in Ukraine. My comment is thus not about improvements to this article but to most other articles on conflicts. And thank you again to the editors of this page. Plm203 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ĩ== Biased language ==

This particular line is highly biased. 'The demonstrators demanded that the Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to lands they were displaced from in what is now Israel. .

Jewish people existed on the land even before it was conquered by Britain. The sentence implies that the whole of Modern day Israel belongs to Palestinians which is highly inaccurate. Worth noting is that, the modern day Palestinians have never had a defined state. Steveonsi (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your views but this is not a forum. In 1900, 4 years after the invention of Zionism, Palestine's population was 83-84% Muslim Arab, 10-11% Christian Arab, and 5% Jewish, of which the overwhelming majority lived only in Jerusalem, mostly in houses rented from Arab proprietors. The sentence implies nothing of the sort:75% of Gazans descend from people expelled from, mostly, areas in the vicinity of the Strip. As everyone knows, Israel belongs to the Israeli people, Jewish and Arab. Don't reply. Read several good books on the facts of history.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a source for your bold claims? You are intentionally erasing Jewish people in the region without providing any single source to back your outlandish claims. Steveonsi (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Do an easy infobox edit for me please

Hi, I do't have 500 edits yet and don't really know how to work with infoboxes, but the casualties section at the bottom of the infobox seems to be improperly/lazily formatted as it doesn't specify which side suffered which casualties, SOMEONE PLEASE FIX Gromte (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Gromte: To this effect, I did find it weird that casualties of 'two sides' are stated without specification of the 'sides' to the civil conflict. I have re-added the belligerents, or 'sides', to the civil conflict that were removed in this edit by Nishidani. Although this isn't a war, it is a civil conflict between Gazans and Israeli government. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead exceeds the recommended length for article leads by two paragraphs. Nishidani, you criticized my attempt to cut down the lead as removing "duly researched" content. That content should also be in the body of the article, so I am not by any stretch "removing" it from the article. I am removing it from the "lead" because the lead must serve as a concise summary of what is already in the article body. If it isn't, that's another sign that the lead isn't properly written. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You also made what the sources say were largely peaceful protests in to something else by first emphasizing violence and then downplaying the non-violent marches to many other protestors where the sources say the vast majority. This game of making drastic POV changes to the leads of articles without apparently even reviewing the articles or sources is getting old. nableezy - 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
What occurred was stricken with violence, "mostly peaceful" is not what the body of sources say. See NYT. They might describe a single day or instance as "mostly peaceful" but most of the attention is paid to the violence that took place. Removing or re-writing the portions that gloss over that is not a "game" or "drastic POV." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Tell me again how you arent editing with a POV slant that disregards the sources. Just havent had a good fiction book to read in a while. nableezy - 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(a)When one removes large amounts of properly sourced material from any section of an article, one should not excise, and leave it to others to restore here or there. One should roll up one's sleeves and relocate the material oneself. Excision is fraught with possibilities of POV suppression of disliked facts.
(b) As to 'stricken with violence', whose violence are you referring to. The lead can be simplified by giving the data for the first week, and then the final summing up of how many people were shot dead by soldiers sniping at a comfortable distance behind a wirefence and an embankment. Those details are available here,Israeli security forces killed 290 Palestinians in 2018; most were victims of a reckless open-fire policy B'tselem 17 January 2019

In 2018 (during the Great March, Nishidani) As a result of this open-fire policy, 190 demonstrators have been killed – 65% of all Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this year. These include a woman and 34 minors, three of whom were 11-years-old and one 4-year-old.Most of them were unarmed and posed no danger to anyone.

Always rely on the good ol' New York Times to think shooting fish in a barrel is negligible compared to the frantic swimming of the violent targets. B'tselem's summary data for 2018 can substitute for the excess material, if we include also the data for those wounded/crippled by the same relentless sniping, the figure runs into thousands by year's end.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Quite.Wikieditor, might I suggest you broaden your reading material you will not get a very good overview of things if you only read the Gray Lady, particularly in the IP area.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This is so-called "largely peaceful protests"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HciUN0ZP7ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUid2THI7_I

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Hello,

The final line in the intro to this article presents a claim without a citation:

After searching for the citation, I found this UNHCR report: https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/A.HRC_.40.CPR_.2.pdf

I could not find reference in the report to the claim of 489 injuries with 2 legal uses of forces. Nonetheless, on pages 104-107, it is mentioned that of the 183 total fatalities, the overwhelming majority were civilians, and while 29 fatalities had former or current military affiliation, there is no evidence that these individuals were attending in any military capacity or in any contradiction to the stated aims of the protests as peaceful (please see point 410 on p. 107 for this latter claim).

The report is an official UNHCR report, so I see no reason for this not to be updated accordingly.

Thank you Spellchecker1776 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:LEADCITE - verified in the section "Investigations". Elli (talk | contribs) 04:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Update on Israeli Casusalties

There is one more IDF soldier killed, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Barel_Hadaria_Shmueli 2A00:A040:19F:93EE:187C:F513:AAB3:48DA (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Category: invasions of Israel

Does this really count as an invasion? There was certainly violence, but I'm not sure it counts as an invasion. The protests took place on the Palestinian side of the border, and most of the violence from within Israel came from isolated terrorist incidents. I'm wondering what other editors think of the category's placement. Painting17 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that abuse, which consists in confusing the modern state of Israel, est.1948, with historic Palestine. I have also removed the Cat from two oither articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

In the casualties section, it says "killedd;" rather than killed. I wanted to fix this mistake. Rednazfirewolf (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. As estar8806 rightly said, the two policies are cannot be applied here. Perhaps, another request can be opened in the next few months. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – This has been discussed already in 2018 but I want to reopen the discussion as I believe the current naming goes against Wikipedia guidelines.

WP:POVNAME: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use."

Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results! Great March of Return name is used by overwhelming majority of reliable sources including The Guardian, BBC, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, a human rights journal, United Nations, and many scholarly works [7], [8]. The guidelines are clear and the evidence is overwhelming and this should not be a controversial move. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous closure

The result of the move request was:Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Post-close elaboration: After a discussion on my talk, I felt a little more elaboration was due here. First off, WP:COMMONNAME was given as a rationale for the move, but was countered by the point that sources use quotation marks around "Great March of Return", which a couple editors felt was indicative that said sources were attempting to distance themselves from usage of the name as an actual term referring to the events. As COMMONNAME no longer applies in that case, WP:POVNAME also no longer applies.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Am I right in saying that these protests continued after 2019? Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure, does it matter? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure either but if the title is not changed then the current title implies they were only 2018-2019. I am pretty sure I have read about them recurring on and off, I will take a look around, see what I can find. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, even if the current title is inaccurate, the Great March of Return title is still overwhelmingly used by reliable sources, which aligns with Wikipedia naming policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Support: There is a clear WP:COMMONNAME here, and yes, WP:POVNAME is a thing that is permittable when there is a clear common name and no obvious contenders. Here the title being used is an WP:NCE that has extremely limited recognizability, whereas the Great March of Return is extremely widely used to refer to these events by organizations of all types. You can also add UNRWA to the ranks of organizations using this common term. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I believe that the Great March of Return is a colloquialism were far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. The colloquialism was coined by Hamas to spark support for the protests. No Israeli source called it the Great March of Return and international sources always attributed the Hamas' name to Hamas. Israeli sources would call the demonstrations "border protests" or "border riots." Furthermore, there was no "returning" of Palestinians that came from the border protests. The "march" was parallel to the border, not across it. In conclusion, the Great March of Return is a partisan name that does not accurately describe the events and was attributed in reliable sources to the partisans that coined the partisan name. Closetside (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
For example, the UN report calls the events "protests in the occupied Palestinian territory," not the Great March of Return. (Source 1 in article)
[1]
Furthermore, Al Jazeera, a pro-Hamas source, calls the events "protests" and places the "Great March of Return" in quotes, distancing themselves from the Hamas name. [2]
Reuters does something similar. The protesters are called border protesters. "The Great March of Return" is in quotes, which distances Reuters from the name. [3]
These are just a few examples of how reliable sources distance themselves form the partisan name. Wikipedia should follow the trend and call these events "border protests" and not its partisan name, the "Great March of Return." Closetside (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Those examples don't seem to reflect the usage within sources. See Reuters/Haaretz, The Guardian (in quotes, but references no other name), the BBC, the NYTimes, the Associated Press (in quotes, but references no other name), the Washington Post (2), the Lancet, the Times of Israel (in quotes, but references no other name), and Public Radio International. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Source 5 in article
  2. ^ Source 1 in article
  3. ^ Source 3 in article
All of what you just argued doesn't contradict the above-cited Wikipedia guideline "...generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
To cite an example against the quotes argument, more than 25 years after The Troubles, they are still being referred to in quotes by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Wikipedia should follow what majority of English reliable sources have used to refer to them, as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:POVNAMING. We have a perfectly suitable descriptive title that makes the content of the article clear to readers; lets use it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Nishidani's comment at Talk:2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun#Requested move 8 December 2019 is relevant here, I believe: I don't mind which way this goes, as long as the decision has general force for all articles. I.e. state a principle of NPOV naming and stick to it everywhere. A vote against 'Great March of Return' in short, should lead to a name change on all these articles on exactly the same grounds. A confirmation that IDF brand names for their offensives are okay automatically should require that editors approve of the same with articles using a Palestinian definition.
    The decision there was to not use "brand names" for Israeli articles; we shouldn't use them for Palestinian articles either. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    False equivalency. This is not the name used by Hamas exclusively, this has been the name used by the majority of reliable sources, and this is what is important to Wikipedia guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, I agree with Closetside: March of Return seems to be far more colloquial than Encyclopedic. While I would support it being mentioned as a name that it is referred to by many (as it currently is on the article), it should not be made the official title of the article beyond a redirect. EytanMelech (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
So does Occupy Wall Street and The Troubles sound "more colloquial than encyclopedic". The Wikipedia guideline cited above is clear: the criteria deciding what an article is called is dependent on what the majority of reliable sources have said; and the reliable sources as demonstrated above have overwhelmingly referred to it as the Great March of Return. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Support I am persuaded by the commonname argument that in this instance, the sheer volume of citations raise it above a mere aka.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Support Regarding the close from the previous discussion, Makeandtoss makes a great point that names like "The Troubles" are still put in quotes by major news agencies, even when overwhelmingly the common name. But adding onto that, "Great March of Return" appears to be the name used by the vast majority of academic sources on this subject (See this article from the Royal Geographical Society with the IBG, in the BMJ, Health and Human Rights, the Middle East journal, etc. - see also Google scholar results: 78 hits vs 714 hits). Most importantly, these protests are not widely known by any other name. The Jewish Virtual Library, the Times of Israel [9] and the Jerusalem Post also all refer to the collective protests as the "Great March of Return". ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - There's a very strong reason why the name shouldn't be changed. You're suggesting a name used by Hamas. It violates WP:NPOV. Please refer to a name that upholds neutrality in Wikipedia. Better use a non partisan name which is the current one used. 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:POVNAME: "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Definitely not an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME; a google search for "2018–2019 Gaza border protests" returns plenty of (in fact, mostly) results that don't mention a March of Return, or do so only to mention that's what organizers were calling it. Even many academic articles refer to it primarily by the years. I would guess that Google scholar results might appear to skew differently only because there's not one clear, fixed format - e.g., I'm seeing "The 2018-19 Gaza Fence clashes," "The Israeli − Palestinian Conflict in the Gaza Strip 2018 − 19," "mass demonstrations in the Gaza Strip in 2018 and 2019", etc. --Tserton (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    For the first 20 results when searching "2018–2019 Gaza border protests" in an incognito window:
    6 did not mention the March of Return.
    10 mentioned the March of Return in the Title
    4 mentioned the March of Return on the first page, 3 of those in the first paragraph.
    Of the 14 results that mentioned the March of Return, 8 did not use quotations.
    The 6 that used quotations either did so without explanation (as one might to indicate a title) or said "referred to as" or "dubbed" without indicating who was calling the protests "The March of Return" (none of them indicated that it was the organizers specifically using that language).
    I'm not sure why your results would be so different. Perhaps google was serving you preferential results based on your search history or location. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Support. The comparison to "Occupy Wall Street" pointed out by Makeandtoss seems particularly apt here. As stated in the article, the protests were initially organized by independent activists. They first used the hashtag "Great Return March" in early January as described in the New York Times [10]. This article is cited and the grassroots nature of the protests are referenced in multiple additional sources [11][12][13][14]
Hamas used the "Great Return March" language when referring to the protests. So did countless contemporaneous sources including the BBC, NPR, CNN, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The LA Times, Amnesty International as well as those geared towards a Jewish/Israeli audience such as The Times of Israel, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish News Syndicate, Jewish Voice for Peace, and yNet. Even reports from multiple Israeli universities and institutions used the "Great Return March" language [15], [16], [17], [18].
Some of the above sources use quotations and some do not. Either way it seems pretty clear the "Great Return March" language is, and always has been, the widely accepted WP:COMMONNAME. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Another comparison worth noting is the page for the Revolution of Dignity. The talk page for that article faced a similar debate and ultimately appear to have decided that common name takes precedence over NPOV. WhiteLotusAcolyte (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests/Archive_5&oldid=1261383738"